100% Cablinasian: Getting the Race Facts Right on Tiger Woods

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

Update: You can find a follow-up, clarification and response to the comments on this post here.

Thanks to Carmen, Andrea and Latoya for helping me flesh out my thoughts!

One night last summer, my Vietnamese friend Winston began recounting the number of top world athletes who also happen to be Asian. “Manny Pacquaio…Yao Ming…Ichiro Suzuki…Tiger Woods…”

“Hey wait,” another friend interrupted. “Can Asians really claim Tiger Woods? What, just because his great-grandmother is Asian he’s proof of Asian superiority?”

“Are you kidding?” Winston responded. “He’s more Asian than anything else.”  Immediately, multiple super phones were put to work verifying this.

This is what Tiger Woods’ Wikipedia page says:

Earl, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel and Vietnam War veteran, was of mixed African American, Chinese and Native American ancestry. Kultida (née Punsawad), originally from Thailand, is of mixed Thai, Chinese, and Dutch ancestry. This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch. He refers to his ethnic make-up as “Cablinasian” (a syllabic abbreviation he coined from Caucasian, Black, (American) Indian, and Asian).

As you know, I am not a fan of referring to mixed race people in terms of percentages and fractions. But I was startled to discover that
1) Tiger Woods is in fact more Asian than anything else.
2) Tiger Woods’ parents are also mixed race – both of his parents can (and probably do) identify as people of colour.

Actually, Tiger Woods is just as Asian as I am.  I was stunned by this information. Why had I not known this? I always assumed that Tiger Woods’ dad was black and his mom was white, and that his Asian connection was a little more indirect, a la Barack.

It seems like I’m not the only one who misconstrued the complexity of Tiger’s roots.  By now we’re all familiar with the outrage around Tiger Woods’ racial taste in women.  Newspapers, blogs and Twitter feeds have blown up with commentary that Tiger’s apparent penchant for white women is just more evidence of how he tries to create distance between himself and black folks.  In essence, because he chooses to bed white women instead of black women, Tiger is not a real black person.

I’m not going to talk about the fact that it is absurd and small-minded to try and mandate the lovelife of an individual by threatening them with explulsion from a racial community.  What I am bothered by is that in all this race vetting, folks can’t even bother to get Tiger’s race right.

In an article alternatingly titled “Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers” and “Tiger’s troubles widen his distance from blacks,” Jesse Washington writes

…Woods’ already shaky standing among many blacks took a beating…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.”

The darts reflect blacks’ resistance to interracial romance. They also are a reflection of discomfort with a man who has smashed barriers in one of the whitest of all sports and assumed the mantle of world’s most famous athlete, once worn by Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

But Woods declines to call himself black, famously choosing the term “Cab­linasian” (Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian) to describe the racial mixture he inherited from his African-American father and Thai mother.

A comment that we didn’t publish on the Tiger Woods piece we ran last week articulated the anger around “Cablinasian,” suggesting it is offensive for Tiger Woods to call himself Cablinasian because most African-Americans are some mix of white, native and black – why does Tiger Woods get to have a special name for it?

Yes, definitely African-Americans in general have mixed heritage.  But there is a distinct difference between having interracial pairings embedded in your family tree, and having a mom who is straight-up Asian.  Look at that adorable picture of Tiger and his mother! If that’s not a picture of a proud Asian mama (she is even wearing the visor, favourite of sun-dwelling Asian ladies worldwide), I don’t know what is.

Here’s the thing.  Sure, I can understand why the black community is hurt that Tiger isn’t more out and out as a black man.  As I non-black person of colour, I share that disappointment.  Here is this black guy who is maybe the greatest golf player ever, and he doesn’t particularly align himself with the black community.  When I asked Latoya about this, she suggested that part of the hurt may come from the fact that Earl Woods was outspoken about racism, black folks and sports.  When Woods Sr. passed away, Tiger didn’t continue the tradition.  Yet reading an old interview with Woods Sr from 2002, it seems like Tiger’s dad was a little murky on the place of racial activism on the golf course:

Asked if he would support the NAACP boycott, Tiger Woods replied… ‘I’m a golfer. That’s their deal, not mine.’

‘Quite right too,’ Woods Snr says. ‘I respect his right not to take up every cause. The media wants poor little Tiger to be a spokesman about everything.’…

‘Tiger is still living his life and he does not want race to be an issue in his life,’ he says, which isn’t strictly true. When Tiger signed his first contract with Nike (for $40m) he was more than happy to read from a script that tackled a race ‘issue’ – denying blacks access to golf course – in the commercial cause of selling golf shoes…’I'll tell you what I think,’ [Woods Sr] says. ‘One guy summed it all up, Rodney King, the guy who was beaten up by the LA police. “Why can’t we all just get along?” he said. That’s the most beautiful thing I have ever heard in my life. Why can’t we all just get along?’

While they have quite different heritages, it strikes me that there’s a parallel between Woods and Obama; while Obama (so far) hasn’t turned into the anti-racist crusader that we all dreamed he’d be, as Cornel West has said, just visually speaking it is a beautiful thing to have “a black face in a high place.”   It seems like that’s all Woods is going to give to the black community – just by standing on the green he represents them.  Beyond that he’d rather pretend (at least according to Woods Sr) that race doesn’t matter.

And considering the pigheaded way that both white and black America treat him, I’m starting to understand potentially why that is.  Maybe Tiger Woods doesn’t talk about race because no one really wants to listen to his experience as the mixed race child of mixed race parents.  Instead white and black America insist that Woods choose one or the other.  It’s bad enough that people are reading out that tired old script about how mixed race black folks always turn out to be race traitors.  But in Woods’ case its not even the right script.

His racial background is not the same as Mariah Carey’s, Alicia Keys’, Drake’s or Barack Obama’s.  He is not “biracial” where “biracial” is code for “black and white.”  He doesn’t have a white parent.  His immediate family members are black, Asian, Native and white.  And also, he doesn’t really look like a black man.  While I find physiognomical discussions kind of gross, Tiger’s face is actually very Southeast Asian.  Know any Thai folks? Filipinos? Malaysians? That’s what Tiger looks like.   He’s designated as black because Americans are not particularly familiar with Southeast Asian looks, similar to how my Arab friends are often thought to be Latin@ when they are in the Southern US.

Is it sort of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to be complaining that when folks discriminate against Woods’ mixed raceness, they’re not getting the races right? Maybe.  But this inability to see more than two tones it’s pretty indicative of America’s race problem, and the trials that some mixed race folk deal with everyday.

When you are biracial, it’s hard enough for our racist culture to understand how that works.  When you throw two more races in the mix, North American culture’s collective head explodes, and just chooses to decide that two of the races don’t exist.

F. commented on last week’s post:

What’s that joke about when Tiger succeeds at something, the media harps on about him being a part-white “Cablinasian”, but when he screws up, suddenly he’s just plain “black”?

I’m sure it is true that the media considers Woods more black when he screws up.

But the insistence on designating Woods as solely black – and getting mad when he tries to articulate his ethnic heritage in a way that feels true to him – is about more than media bias towards black crime.  It’s about our need to simplify all complex racial phenomenons into the binary of black and white, effectively erasing anyone who doesn’t fit  inside.

Tiger Woods seems like a jackass.  He cheated on his wife in a particularly flagrant way.  But that’s no reason to deny him the right to self-identify.

Even jackasses should get to tell us themselves who they are.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. I Can Hardly Wait. « I Wanna Do Right But Not Right Now on 09 Dec 2009 at 4:02 pm

    [...] Racialicious: 100% Cablinasian: Getting the Race Facts Right on Tiger Woods [...]

  2. Revisiting “100% Cablinasian”: 6 Thoughts on Tiger Woods | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 21 Dec 2009 at 12:38 pm

    [...] writing 100% Cablinasian: Getting the Race Facts Right on Tiger Woods, I consulted with Carmen, Latoya and Andrea. After the post was done, I sent it to Latoya and asked [...]

Comments

  1. OuyangDan wrote:

    Yes. So many times yes.

    I really just don’t know what else to say. I struggle with my own thoughts on being bi-racial, with having the identity of white foisted upon me, and that is hard enough for me to manage. Having such a complex heritage is too much for most North Americans to grasp.

    You are so right, that when people read or hear “bi-racial” they assume it means “black and white”, and often it isn’t. This is just so well put and so much of what is going on inside my mind, both personally, and when I have been reading the news lately. Thank you!

  2. Zahra wrote:

    This is a great piece about the perils of the black/white binary, and (more generally) imposing one fairly common narrative about race onto people with very different experiences. Those of us who aren’t multiracial do need to listen and respect what multiracial have to say about their identities and experiences, even when it makes us uncomfortable.

    I never expected to read anything this intelligent about the Tiger Woods fiasco.

  3. atlasien wrote:

    Yes! I mentioned this before, but most of the commentary on Tiger Woods has been personally upsetting to me, as another multiracial Asian.

    Woods’ multiracial identity, and any words he uses to describe it, is separate from his identification or lack of identification with a black community. And it’s also separate from his bad behavior.

    I know a lot of people don’t see it that way, but I do. A lot of people who DON’T identify as multiracial also have issues with connection, or lack of connection, to their minority communities. Multiracial people just make the easiest targets!

    I don’t care what he’s criticized for in regards to community connections. I do care that his right to identify as multiracial is LINKED to these judgments, and then disparaged. And this affects other multiracial people who aren’t as rich and lucky (umm, well, not lucky currently, but generally) as Tiger Woods…

    And I hate racial guessing games based solely on facial features and skin color. It’s like Pin the Tail on The Donkey except you’re doing it to real human being.

    I’m just as half-Asian as Tiger Woods, but I’ve never in my life been regarded as anything other than Asian. Does that have any reflection, positive or negative, on my connection or lack of connection to any ethnic community? No, it’s just an accident of genetics. It’s had a lot of social aftereffects, true, but at its base, it’s random.

    I understand that long-standing issues of colorism in black communities makes the parallel different, and raises the stakes higher. But I have to stand with other people like Thea and defend the right of all multiracial people in this regard.

  4. blaqbird wrote:

    thank you for this! finally somebody put into words what I’ve been feeling about Woods for years!

  5. Celeste wrote:

    I agree that he looks very SE asian.

  6. octopod wrote:

    I think it’s possible that a lot of Americans hear the name “Tiger Woods” and think he can’t possibly be Asian because he doesn’t have anything like an Asian name. Just saying, based on my own and my family’s experiences — it seems that sometimes folks don’t know how to “place” you at first if you’re mixed, and then hear your name and assign you firmly to an ethnic category in their head.

  7. tpear wrote:

    I was not aware of Tiger’s parent’s heritage, but the fact is, his father identifies as a black man. I always thought his mother was Asian (I never heard anyone refer to her as white). Ms. Lim seems to have a problem with Black people wanting to “claim” him, but the tone of this article clearly supports the argument that she wants to claim him as Asian. To be quite frank, I don’t think black people care about Tiger Woods. He showed us a long time ago that he does not want to be identified as one of us, and therefore this piece is obsolete. Tigers all yours!

  8. m. wrote:

    Your friend forgot my boyfriend, Hines Ward.

    I thought EVERYONE knew Tiger Woods had an Asian mother?! Okay, well, I am very glad that you found out and posted this here, because maybe others who didn’t know or have been conveniently ‘forgetting’/erasing her from the picture to make their anger towards Tiger more justifiable will see this.

    This is not the first time mixed people have had those “from” either side claiming “ownership” of or rejecting them. Unfortunately, it won’t be the last.

  9. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    Don’t forget the One Drop of Blood rule.

    It doesn’t matter how Asian Tiger Woods is. Once he’s got black heritage, he’s BLACK, period.

  10. Val wrote:

    I really don’t think it’s that we got our feelings hurt because Tiger chose not to be African American, it’s more that he used African American-ness to propel him to fame.

    The narrative that the media loved was Black golfer makes it big, not Asian or Cablinasian golfer makes it big.

    So there is resentment because many of us feel like Tiger used his African American-ness just long enough to get famous and rich and then he became Cablinasian.

    Also, please note that Tiger didn’t publicly renounce/ deny his African American-ness until after he was famous and rich.

  11. Lurker wrote:

    Hi, love the website, etc.

    But this post rubs the wrong way. Wow.

    1. You’re “not a fan” of racial percentage breakdowns, yet you go ahead and do exactly that, in precisely the most irritating way ever–to quantify Tiger Woods’ racial categories as “proof” that one group’s claim to him is illegitamate.

    2. The hell does it matter to you if black people claim or don’t claim him? We arbitrarily claim and unclaim things all the time, typically in a humourous way (and we traded him back in the race draft, don’t forget) and don’t take this nearly as seriously as the media is trying to portray right now. It’s an “in group” thing that many people are a) not going to get and apparently, b) going to jump on as some ultimate proof of black ignorance and the evil conspiracy blacks hold over other people of color to maintain our “number one nigger privilege”.

    3. To reemphasize, most blacks don’t “care”. Saying “lol, shouldnta got with a white girl” passively, giggling about it, and continuing our 30 Rock marathon, is not “caring”. It’s what all overly opinionated Americans do–talk shit and move on.

    4. How did you not know Tiger was half Asian?

  12. Crystal wrote:

    Thanks, Thea (et al), for a thoughtful exploration of this subject. As a mixed race person who for decades has been asked to, or forced to, choose sides, I always enjoy a discussion that acknowledges the complexity of the multi-racial experience.

    My strongest reaction to this piece was to the phrasing of the deleted comment: “Why does Tiger GET TO have a special name” for his ethnicity (my emphasis).

    That wording made me a little sad for the commenter.

    We ALL “get to” define ourselves however we want. In fact, we conscious folk have something of a responsibility to define ourselves how we see ourselves, rather than conforming to some misinformed societal construction of what our race should mean about us.

    Each one of us should try to be who WE think we are, versus who OTHERS think we are or should be. That’s a bad trap that all of us would do well to avoid.

    Of course, with this self-definition comes the mandatory advocacy role, where you have to defend your position, your self-definition, if it stands in contrast to the norm.

    And of course Tiger Woods’ wealth and notoriety give him a platform for his self-defining, and insulate him from some of the difficulties of racial bias. But that strikes me as a privilege of class, not of race. And that “privilege” looks like a mixed bag, from all the criticism and analysis he is subjected to. Maybe he’s a little more insulated from some racial bias than some of us are, but it’s not like he escapes the advocacy role. Even Tiger has to explain himself. Plus, ha ha, he is black when he screws up.

    But, at the end of the day, if you’re not defining yourself as multi-faceted-ly as you’d like to be, you’re missing out, and that’s on you.

  13. mieko wrote:

    Thank God, someone said this. I am so tired of hearing that mixed race people are “self-hating” or “in denial” whenever we decide to identify with more than one race. I am unfamiliar with Tiger Woods’ history with the black community, but honestly if he had experienced anything like I experience (and still do) from much of the black community whenever I try to identify as anything other than monoracially black, I can see why he wouldn’t want to identify with them. It’s frustrating, having people tell you all-or-none, and constantly othering and berating you. I’m not saying denying any part of your heritage is not the right thing to do (IMO it’s the same as denying a relative exists), but I can certainly understand the feeling of “They don’t accept me? Well, I won’t accept them!”

    Times have gotten slightly easier with Obama’s presidency. Suddenly being mixed is hip (I can’t tell you how many times “are you mixed? Fascinating!” has been used as a pick-up line), but me and Tiger? We did it before it was popular :P

  14. malted_tea wrote:

    Whoa, stop. This…

    I’m sure it is true that the media considers Woods more black when he screws up.

    …is not something to just throw out there without anything concrete to back it up. Granted, it’s your opinion but the ramifications here are very important.

    Remember that OJ photo where one publication made his skin color several shades darker and presented a very negative headline? When put side by side to the color-correct version, the intent to infer subtle racism was clear.

    Your contention would be something easy enough to prove with several people (each with a lot of time on their hands) sifting through media reports on Woods.

    It could then be triaged between sports and non-sports related stories. Something along the lines of:

    SPORTS, positive stories/mentions
    NON-SPORTS, positive stories/mentions
    SPORTS, negative stories/mentions
    NON-SPORTS, negative stories/mentions

    It’s not that I don’t agree that this could be happening.

    I want to know if it is. I want a reason to get angry if it is.

    As to the topic of claiming Tiger, bashing him for his romantic choices or otherwise judging him based on some kind of ethnic framework, I think that’s wrong on a lot of levels.

    Let the dude live out his life, grieve his father (because that’s where I think this torrid story will go) and work out his home issues.

  15. intheUniverse wrote:

    I thought everyone knew that Tiger Woods’ mother was Asian (even from the start of his career) . His familial heritage mirrors many in my family.

  16. Erin wrote:

    I don’t like the term “mixed” to describe anything. It’s offensive and makes a person sound like a bulk food item or a puppy.

  17. Just A Thought wrote:

    I never really had a problem with Tiger defining himself as multicultural. He has an Asian mother, and a black father (in most interviews Woods Sr. self-identified as black without mention of mixed race ancestry)

    . I did give him the side eye for the Native American comment (just my personal thing. Most AA claim to have NA ancestry, and most don’t) and the Caucasian comment. It’s one thing to have a direct parent (or even grandparent) of a different race. It’s another to go hunting up the family tree to find people of other races.

    As for claiming him as mostly Asian, it’s the same thing as claiming him as mostly black. Neither is right. He defined himself (albeit after he got rich and famous) as multiracial. Percentages are inaccurate, and serve only to justify certain types of mixed race lineage as more authentic, especially in the US where people didn’t always have a choice to self-identify.

  18. Charles J wrote:

    As a African-American who is young. I feel that maybe the Black community feels a little slighted because when Tiger was just a small child he was featured in Ebony magazine, a magazine about Black people and he was called something like the next big thing in golf–this “Black” child is the next Big thing, not this multiracial child.

    Fast forward 15years and now he is this multiracial child, with a little Black in him. If you look at history and group identity. The predictable behavior for some who is Black and mixed with anything else is to go for the other race, even if the race is not Black, especially they are not dark-skinned. So the whole Tiger Woods saga with Black people is not just about Tiger, but all the other people he represents group-wise.

    We got race, colorism and ethnic oppression mixed in that we need to dissect each and every portion One can self-identify all day long, there is nothing wrong with it, but once the self-identification has taken place it is very necessary to GROUP IDENTIFY YOURSELF. Yes we are all individuals, but individuals in a group, be it the White group or People of Color and it is our responsibility as a group member to understand what being born in that group means and if one is multiracial, please take the time out to become knowledgeable about all your parts not just one. Tiger with his multiracial or at times raceless self just doesn’t get it.

  19. 123 wrote:

    “He doesn’t really look like a black man.”

    What does a black man look like? Black (male and female) come in s variety of looks. There’s no one standard look that can be used to deem whether a person is black or not.

    My eldest brother has strikingly facial features to him and neither side of my family has Asian blood. To me, while he (Tiger) is quite obviously mixed, he does look like he’s half Black.

    And as for media trying to push this fuax rage about Black females being upset that he only cheated with White woman, we aren’t. Of course there are some, there are weirdos in every group, but I highly doubt that a significant portion of Black females are upset. There’s nothing to be enraged about. The media is just trying to find a reason to keep this story in the news instead of letting it die and leaving Tiger, Elin, and the harem alone.

  20. Kris wrote:

    I also thought everyone knew his mother was Asian as well and yes, he does look more Asian than black. He looks just like his mother.

    I clearly remember when he first one the Masters that the guy who gave him the Green Jacket or at the ceremony they congratulated him as the first Black and Asian American to win. I thought it was cool at the time, but everyone else forgets that.

    This is great article about the complexities of mixed race identity and I appreciate it and will share it.

  21. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @lurker/tpear –

    Chill for a second. Let’s listen to what the multiracial folks are saying here. There has been comment after comment lodged about identifying with Thea’s piece because she hits on something major – that if you look at his whole background, it is clear that Woods is being held up to standards of blackness that in his case do not apply. Thea wrote a long post on why mixed folks aren’t “half” anything, that’s why she isn’t into fractions. And I doubt this is an attempt to “claim him” for Asian America – it more of a response to articles in the mainstream media that talk about how Tiger has rejected the black community by dating a white woman – a racialized construction that does not necessarily apply.

    It is imperative for participants on this site to understand that the experience of multiracial people in America is not the same as our own – even if this person “looks black,” or even if they identify as black people with biracial heritage (like Halle Berry and Barack Obama).

    However, with that being said:

    @Mixed race folks (and some of you know who you are) –

    When discussions of mixed race identity come up, I must admit I am often annoyed to see people deriding groups (specifically African Americans) for “claiming” someone as their own.

    While I understand that such a “claim” may feel restrictive to some, it is also a way that people in the black community also show solidarity to one another. Before, historically, when someone was considered nonwhite, they would be rejected by white society. Many of these people found acceptance and solidarity within the black community, and many of our black leaders, thinkers, and artists have also been of mixed heritage. Due to the politics of the day, and at great risk to themselves, they identified as black, accepting the subsequent discrimination in order to find a social and peer group.

    The politics of race have changed (In some ways, but in others they are maddeningly the same) but some of the older ways have held. Most African Americans do not want to “claim” some who has disdain for us, which some people get from Woods’ past jokes, positioning in the spotlight, and yes, his choice of marriage partner. However, part of the anger comes from showing someone solidarity and having it be rejected. As some have mentioned, Tiger Woods rose to fame and prominence based on both his talent – as well as his uniqueness is being identified as a black person in the very white dominated world of golf. Would Tiger Woods be a household name if not for the things that made him visually stand out? Or for the big push in support that came from the black community celebrating what appeared to be a black golfer holding his own? (In a similar manner that the black community supports Venus and Serena Williams?) This idea of in group solidarity is how a lot of black owned stores stay in business, why people like me do things like seek out and promote black rock artists or black writers. We understand the racism that others face, and while we may have our own critiques, we do like to rally and show support.

    Rejection of “claiming” can feel like a slap in the face to those of us who see solidarity as a necessary way to combat racism. I will concede that many of you have at large faced requests to assimilate or cover. But please remember that your comments do not exist outside of the historical politics of blackness, assimilation and rejection.

  22. m. wrote:

    @Just A Thought:

    I did give him the side eye for the Native American comment (just my personal thing. Most AA claim to have NA ancestry, and most don’t) and the Caucasian comment. It’s one thing to have a direct parent (or even grandparent) of a different race. It’s another to go hunting up the family tree to find people of other races

    YES.
    It’s also fucked up when people throw ‘Native American’ into the mix alongside all their other ETHNICITIES because it always implies that we have no culture, and I’m sorry to say it, people, but that just isn’t true nor does it work that way. It’s a slap in the face when outsiders pull this stupid crap. I am only ‘Native American’ according to the U.S. census, racialization and other things and people that don’t care – but in actuality I am a Hopi/Tewa and Dine’ woman. Once again, everyone else gets to be recognized as unique and special snowflakes, while Native people are just this big mass of leather and feathers and all it takes to be recognized by outsiders as Native is a rumored grandparentmother.

    Oh, and Tiger was also Asian when he screwed up in white peoples’ eyes. Hence, all the jokes every Dane Cook-fancying fool running their mouths under the guise of ‘comedy’ told about how “his Asian side crashed the car”. His Asianness was certainly played up, there…to be the big butt of a totally-not-even-clever joke.

  23. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    All sorts of problems with this post that are hard for me to articulate. I get the sense that there is a game that we can refuse to play because we acknowledge it is stupid and pointless—unless it appears the “We” might be in the lead! Then we play it with gusto.

    Woods is “more Asian than anything else”? By virtue of what? The Asian (vs Black vs White vs…) “gene”? By virtue of his lived experience and how he sees himself? By virtue of how others treat him?

    [Not to mention the idea that he is one of those folks who is often said to have "transcended" race--as if being Black (or Asian, or "Cablinasian") is some affliction or less-evolved state one aims to get beyond in order to become fully human.]

    A comedian once said that when a fellow golfer wanted to denigrate Woods racially he did not quip that now the tournament he had just won would now have to serve egg rolls and fried rice; the golfer said they’d now have to eat fried chicken and collard greens. (Paraphrasing.) And as far as I know, when Woods was caught telling racist jokes of his own, they were about Blacks, not Asians (or Whites, or Indians, or…)

    For those Black folks who care at all, even in passing, about Woods and his current troubles, we have some reason to read racial overtones into this–racial overtones specific to Woods as a Black multiracial man.

    Anyone who wants to “claim” him as one of their own can feel free. But that does not change the way in which coverage of Woods has often been used as a weapon against Black folks. And the quoted article hand-wringing about Black people treating him unfairly and “distancing” him from them is further proof.

    Once more, Black folks are painted as evil, petty and narrow-minded.

  24. Crystal Marie wrote:

    I appreciate the new perspective I got from this article.

    My only beef with Tiger Woods is that he picks and chooses when he wants to align himself with the Black community. Much of what makes him so celebrated as a sports icon is his racial heritage, which many identify to be Black.

    If Tiger Woods wasn’t “Tiger Woods,” when he got pulled over by the police, he would be considered a Black man. Black people didn’t create this ridiculous system of making someone who is “one drop Negro” identify as Black; it was thrust upon us. Now, that Tiger is arguably the best golfer around, and Black Americans want to proudly call him Black, there’s pushback.

    Sigh, we’re tired of it. Personally, as a Black American woman, with a half-white mother, I think it’s fine to accept and embrace all that you are. Just don’t be so upset when Black Americans want to accept Tiger as one of ours. It doesn’t mean we don’t think he’s Asian too. And how in the heck did you not know he was Asian?!?!? Where you been?!? lol!

    P.S. I appreciate The Lurker’s comments.

  25. NYAra wrote:

    @Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote: “Don’t forget the One Drop of Blood rule. It doesn’t matter how Asian Tiger Woods is. Once he’s got black heritage, he’s BLACK, period.”

    LOL. It’s safe to say that no one will be forgetting about the “One Drop of Blood rule” when there are misguided people such as yourself reminding us at every turn about said rule. About 1/3rd of White Americans have recent African ancestry. (This does not even include the Whites who acquired recent African ancestry from mixing in Southern Europe [Americans whose descent is Portuguese, Italian, etc.] or from mixing in the Middle East/Northern Africa [meaning Arab-Americans, who are generally classified as White]). Most Latinos, about half of which define themselves as White, have recent African ancestry. Many Native Americans have recent African ancestry. Are all of these Americans “BLACK, period”? Would you really want them to be “BLACK, period”? Perhaps you should think long and hard about what it truly means to be a Black American/African-American. Because it certainly isn’t just about having “One Drop of [Black] Blood.” Or is this just too frightening for you to think about as it challenges the simplistic racial belief system that you so desperately cling to?

  26. blah wrote:

    and once again Black Women are used as scapegoats for society’s uneasiness with IR

  27. Solange wrote:

    If you look at most peoples background you will find that we are all mixed, however is father is black and his mom is Asian. So logically he should identify with both. I think that many blacks felt slighted by Tiger because so many people will say that they are everything but black. As a result many assume that when a person does not identify its because they are self hating. I don’t care which way he identifies, just saying.

  28. Monica wrote:

    I don’t get how anyone didn’t know he was basically half-black, half-Asian. This has been out there forever.

  29. Jess wrote:

    When this story broke I kept thinking of the Chapelle Show joke about the “race draft.”

    Latoya, I think you really have something there when you talk about anger directed at someone who seems to reject the community doing the “claiming.”

    I was thinking that a similar phenomenon (kind of in reverse) happened with OJ Simpson. I’m old enough to remember black kids calling him “Oreo J Simpson” (this was back in the 70s and early 80s). Then, after years of his being pretty indifferent to black political concerns he is suddenly symbolic of black folks everywhere when he is on trial (even though you can see in the videos that it was just as many white people cheering for him in the chase). *

    Maybe this is all about the meme that every black person in public life has to have an opinion on something they may not care about or feel they know enough about.

    The quote from Woods Sr. up there reminded me of that. I mean why should Tiger Woods be as involved politically as say, Ossie Davis was? They are different people.

    We don’t, as a society, like it when anyone answers a “race” question with “I don’t know,” or “I never thought about it” or even “I play golf, there are people better equipped to talk about X than me.” it;s like we all want a yes or no answer to questions that have no yes or no answer.

    That’s different than pretending race doesn’t matter. It’s just choosing to deal with it in a different way. And nobody seems to want to let Tiger deal with things his way.

    *[I am not saying that race didn't matter in his trial and arrest just that I think there was a lot of crap coming form the (largely white owned) media that seemed to say that all black people in America -- or at least LA -- would feel "naturally" loyal to OJ, and no white person would support his acquittal. That seemed a shaky and idea at the outset. And in fact it took some time for the race narrative to take hold -- remember Furman's testimony wasn't a big deal until some months in].

  30. Calvin wrote:

    Lol @ this article. Why are we now getting Tiger Woods race straight? Smh… its only when a person/celebrity “messes up” that we want to clarify his/her race?

    Anyways, I never saw Tiger Woods as “black” from day one. He’s always been an “Asian” w/ African American admix to me (for god’s sake… the man looks Filipino/Pacific Islander), plus I never felt (and still don’t) that he relates/connects to the African-American community. He’s only “black” by default, in my opinion.

  31. mieko wrote:

    oops- correction: I should have said- “I’m not saying that any part of your heritage is the right thing to do.” He may feel forced to cover, but that doesn’t make it right to deny his black heritage, just as it would be wrong to deny his other heritages.

  32. Zahra wrote:

    @ Just A Thought

    “Most AA claim to have NA ancestry, and most don’t.”

    In my experience, most African-Americans identify as black, but will acknowledge that they probably have some white and some Native ancestry, especially if they “look the part” and the question is forced upon them, as it often is. (I can’t begin to tell you how often this happens to my partner.)

    Many, many black people don’t know their family history because of generations of systematic racism and atrocities, but are forced to answer questions along this line. And there are communities where historical evidence shows that white racism forced black and Native communities to combine early on, or that combining was an effective resistance strategy (Nantucket Island is a good example).

    I’m not saying that there’s nothing problematic about African-Americans claiming Native ancestry, but there’s also a counter-trend in which the Native heritage of some black people is constantly being reframed as white. Alaya Dawn Johnson, a black author of Cherokee and Blackfoot descent, has an essay about one of her experiences here:

    http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/17/the-personal-history-of-the-author-is-tangential-at-best/

  33. mieko wrote:

    grrr- again. “I’m not saying that DENYING any part of your heritage is the right thing to do.” Sorry for the multiple correction-posts.

  34. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Jess -

    Good observation re: OJ, which reminds me that I should clarify that this acceptance/rejection dynamic isn’t just put upon mixed people.

    OJ is a good example of how that flows – he was a black person in the public eye, but didn’t seem to give a shit about black issues. (Which is generally not a requirement for celebs). I am a bit too young to remember to remember why exactly OJ was looked at sideways, but I do remember the trial didn’t see a lot of support for him until racist things started happening. At that point, it felt like “differences aside, all in!” That shared narrative of suffering at the hands of racism is a powerful thing.

    A similar thing also happened to Clarence Thomas. He was confirmed with a lot of black popular support (the racial solidarity did not extend to Anita Hill, but that’s a whole other can of worms.) However, after he got on the bench and presented an image of “pulling up the ladder” when black support turned away from him.

    This issue isn’t unique to Woods – but it is exacerbated by the fact that many think he picks and chooses solidarity when convenient, distancing when convenient, which is never how this works. And adding racial background into the mix pulls up all kinds of other fault lines, which makes conversation difficult.

  35. Lurker wrote:

    Hi Latoya,

    I take issue with this post and the way it is written, and I am not going to break down each poorly argued segment. There were far too many assumptions and conjectures made about “what the black community does” and a lot of blacks/whites vs. everyone else and not much from a perspective that acknowledges white supremacy and the institution of racism. (Besides… not knowing that Tiger’s mom is Asian and then assuming most other people wouldn’t know? And saying that, of all things, is because of the black/white racial narrative? Ugh, terrible. Sorry. Terrible.)

    With all that said, the black/white racial narrative in the US and the subsequent ignoring or forgetting of other narratives is quite real, and I think this is a good topic to discuss, FROM AN ANTI-RACIST PERSPECTIVE, meaning with white supremacy first and foremost in our minds. We should be asking WHY this occurs and HOW, remembering that just as being The Model Minority has limited mileage, so does being The Token Minority. These are not privileges, folks, they are products of racism. Let’s not be foolish here.

  36. Lurker wrote:

    What I should have added what that I have no problem with Tiger Woods, how he identifies, or what race of women he cheats on his wife with. But I will laugh about it. Because it’s funny.

    (Pretend that was at the beginning of my last comment)

  37. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lurker -

    Here’s probably where you are choking.

    With all that said, the black/white racial narrative in the US and the subsequent ignoring or forgetting of other narratives is quite real, and I think this is a good topic to discuss, FROM AN ANTI-RACIST PERSPECTIVE, meaning with white supremacy first and foremost in our minds.

    A friend of the blog once put forth the idea (back when we were playing around with definitions of racism) that the sole functional form of racism is white supremacy. It is a major focus of anti-racism, the global cause of much strife, etc, etc.

    However, in this space, white supremacy is not the only frame we work from. It is a major frame, but the problems involved in coalition building are not solved by just focusing on racist acts by whites and systemic racism. It’s a huge portion of our fight – but it doesn’t get to the heart of why many anti-racist activists remained sequestered in our own communities and fail to communicate cross culturally.

    We absorb many of the narratives dominant culture has assigned to us. And we absorb those narratives that the dominant culture has provided to us about others. And often times, we do not see the need to challenge them. Yes, sure, its really easy for us all to be anti racist when we point the finger at white supremacy. But when we look at how we perpetuate divisions within ourselves, how communities divide against others even when we are working for the same goal, and part of that is because many of us hold our own beliefs too close to hear any one elses experience. Instead of listening for overlap, we listen for differences. We allow our selves to perpetuate them.

    The most contentious posts are always ones in which we are describing POC-on-POC problems. But those are necessary in which to uncover why we cannot have or maintain multiracial coalitions. Much hunch is that we (collective) are so busy protecting ourselves against anything that might be a perceived slight that we dismiss very real concerns from different communities trying to work together. (Think of those posts on the blog as a working experiment).

    You do not have to like or agree with Thea’s piece. But I would advise you to go back and closely read all the comments who agreed with her. What narrative did she tap into that so many people could identify with?

  38. Thea Lim wrote:

    @all

    Just to clarify, I’m not interested as an Asian in “claiming” Tiger Woods. I also wasn’t trying to say he is not black or not white or not Native…But rather that he is all of these things. Very few narratives about him respect that.

    For me to say we should see him as mostly Asian is just as problematic as saying we should see him as mostly black…in his own words (and he has been very consistent about sticking to this) he is a mix of all of these things.

  39. yolanda wrote:

    @Calvin: I agree with your comment most. I mean, anyone with 1/2 a brain or who cares could easily google “Tiger Woods” and find out exactly what his race is if it’s *so* important to them. Many black people couldn’t careless about Tiger Woods, and most of us don’t clamor to “claim” him or not claim him. When I heard about the Tiger Woods scandal I thought, “oh, another celebrity effing up–only this one is supposedly perfect. Haha.” Yes, everyone should be allowed to identify however they want but this article neglects the fact that black people don’t care about Tiger in the first place.

  40. Michelle wrote:

    Sigh! Everyone in the world knew that Tiger Woods’ mama was Asian. Who DIDN’T know that? They were clearly living under a rock.

    Your article is so well structured and so enlightening and I really loved it. I just wish you had realized that Black people have been hip to Tiger Woods, his daddy and his mama since he was a child! Does anyone remember a Black Teen mag that was like a more sophisticated, glossier Right On? I think it was through the Urban League? Anyway, Tiger was featured in that when he was like 14 or 15 and I decided then that he would be my man. Joke’s on me! Yeah, and we knew then that he was Asian. Just like he was Black.

    Which brings me to the second issue that I have with your article. His father, like most Black people, has something else in him, but like the other poster so brilliantly said, Black people get tired of other Black people digging around the family tree to come up with a Native American, White, Mexican, Asian, Canadian (or ANYTHING) ancestor. Because we have SEEN the denials that non-multiracial Black people come up with to prove that they are not Black. I have heard school yard arguments about having “indian in my family”. In fact, it is so prolific that is a joke with the Black community…”I got Indian in my family”. As great as your article is, I think that you miss that crucial distinction in why it seems to you that Black people are critical of Tiger. What you are really hearing is, “Negro, please! We ALL got Indian in our family! You ain’t special.” You are NOT hearing, “Who cares about his Asian mama! Who is she anyway?” It is not the Asian part of the Cabilinasian. It is the Caucasian and Native American part that seems like it is a bit of a reach.

    That said, I do TOTALLY get why multiracial people in America feel so slighted and picked apart. It must really be hard to have to force people to see you as YOU see you. Not as they see you. I can imagine what it must be like for multiracial Americans. It seems that the rest of the world is far more aware in those matters. I thank all you for always sharing and staying true to yourselves as we all sort through this conversation.

    And really, I wish this story wasn’t a story. Sigh. Sigh. Big fat sigh!

  41. Lurker wrote:

    To Latoya,

    “…white supremacy is not the only frame we work from. It is a major frame, but the problems involved in coalition building are not solved by just focusing on racist acts by whites and systemic racism.”

    To clarify, I’m not talking about “racist acts” by whites either.

    As cool and futuristic as it would be, we do not exist in a vacuum. No one’s cultural or demographic identities exist in a vacuum. When we discuss coalition building between people of color, we can’t forget that white supremacy stands between us and controls the dynamics and leads the conversations. Racism in the west IS white supremacy. If we acknowledge that race is a construct, then we acknowledge that it was constructed to privilege whiteness, to allow whites access to resources (material, emotional, or otherwise) at the expense of all others and ourselves.

    And yes, we all play that game. That is the nature of race.

    So when we talk about the tensions between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, or East Asians and Southeast Asians, or black people and brown people, to ignore the constructs within which we even discuss these things is to leave gaping logical holes in any of our statements.

    Multiracial people are fighting for agency in a system that was not designed to allow people of color this type of control of their identities. They are fighting for agency in a system that simultaneously praises them simply by virtue of not being “mono” and erases their experiences entirely because “multi” is delinquent from the clearly-cut narratives that white supremacy needs in order to function.

    My point is that intra/inter-POC problems do not exist outside of this framework at all, and to discuss these issues while ignoring the framework is the precise reason why coalition building fails so often.

  42. Lola wrote:

    1. the “black community” is not some Tiger hating monolith, I for one could care less who he has sex with or what he calls himself
    2. that “Cablinasian” thing is the most misquoted racial identity EVER, on Oprah he said that as a CHILD, he called himself Cablinasian, as an ADULT he identifies as Black and Asian!
    3. I’m sick of the racial identiy police jumping on Tiger or Obama or whomever for not idenitfying themselves the way some random stranger wants them to, it is no ones business how they identify, except for maybe the Census

  43. Adrienne wrote:

    I too remember alot of Black magazines back in the day talking about Tiger Woods. He was the man back then. He wasn’t saying anything negative about Black people or having Black ancestry, as he was a child then.

    So I totally get what different posters are saying about why ambivalence by some Black folks for Tiger Woods isn’t the same as “Ohh Black people dont like Tiger”. He is like the cousin who has something negative to say about Blackness, who smiles in the face of racist incidents who we know got tied to a tree in kindergarten and called the N word (True story for Tiger–who saw the Tiger Woods Story movie that also shows him going to a Buddhist temple with his mama?)

    For me personally, it wasn’t about Tiger being required to be politically outspoken against racism like his father was, but about Tiger not seeming to get pissed off and realizing that racism doesnt just hurt him but other POC who also face being the “only” POC in a predominately White environment.

    Some of the racism Tiger faced made me feel for him and the ways he reacted to that racism also made me feel sorry for him.

    I reject the notion that my own personal criticism of Tiger Woods is a criticism of mixed race folks. Personally I have known many mixed raced folks who don’t behave like Tiger who don’t smile in the face of racism, who don’t make choices that protect their status as the only POC in predominately White arenas. Many POC I know who are multiracial actually express some type of emotion about racism. A part of me feels that Tiger Woods would actually have an issue with another POC coming onto his turf at the same time that he was at the height of his career success…it seemed to be that a part of his success and fame transformed from his being featured in Black magazines as a child into being happy at being the good and only multiracial POC in golf. I don’t feel that Tiger fully understood why many Black people were genuinely excited for him in the beginning of his career. And why some of us then became perplexed, and then offended and then indifferent or resentful of his speaking of Blackness, or his Black ancestry as if it was a the bad part of his multiracial background.

    I know what its like to be the only POC in a predominately White environment, and to excel while in that environment and all eyes on you. But I am not multiracial. I am Black and I do wonder if Tiger got comfortable being the model minority and uncomfortable with the part of himself that has Black ancestry out of the Caubalinasian of himself.

    Re: the Black by default comment, I actually said “ouch” when I read that.

  44. bri wrote:

    you didn’t know he was part asian… oh wow. Seriously, that was always the big thing about him. :/ I am black and many black people are not upset that he’s not sleeping with black women. I could care less. I am bothered and disgusted that he is sleeping with multiple women that are not his wife, without condoms.

    I usually like pieces on this site but this gets a thumbs down. :/ Just like that stupid article that was on abc. I couldn’t even finish it.

  45. Moth wrote:

    I’m a little concerned by two of the sentiments that keep popping up on this thread.

    First, the idea that not all mixed people get to self identify — some POCs, and some people who consider themselves “truly multiracial” get to tell others they’re not really multiracial. They get to act as though heritage expires after a certain time period, that your mix isn’t relevant or legitimage after x amount of generations, and that you should relinguish part of your heritage at the demands of others who are the self proclaimed authorities on racial identification. All this is based on the pseudo-scientific belief in blood quantum — which was invented by whom? Oh yeah – white supremacists.

    Second, the idea that people claim Native American or other heritages to feel superior or special or less another heritage — usu. AfAm. AfAm’s who claim Native American heritage are ok to mock, because, supposedly, they’re ignorant of the fact that other AfAms also have NA heritage. Again the sentiment is that mixed Indians should abandon their heritage at the demand of others.

    Please, let’s make this a safe place for ALL POC and mixed folks to ID as they please — remember, you don’t know why people claim what they claim and you don’t have the authority to decide what constitues a legitimage part of someone’s identity.

  46. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    **+atlasien said “A lot of people who DON’T identify as multiracial also have issues with connection, or lack of connection, to their minority communities. Multiracial people just make the easiest targets!”**

    I think this is just so so true. Trying to make a person “fit” into one group is always hard because every human being is so multi-faceted, but its particularly hard when a person identifies with multiple groups. It must be SO FRUSTRATING to be a multiracial person in the U.S. when everyone wants to tell you how you “should” identify rather than allowing your own personal identity be:
    1. PERSONAL and not a subject to public vote.
    2. Subject to change as you age, change geographical location, etc.
    3. Fluid and complex…and therefore not so easy to define on the spot.

    Then again, I really appreciate hearing the context of “claiming” as articulated by Latoya Peterson in one of the comments. That makes lots of sense.

  47. littleshotlarry wrote:

    Here is the bottom line. Tiger Woods’ statements have given the distinct impression to many many intelligent black people [no not a monolith] that he is ashamed of the black part of his heritage. Like someone else said, whoever wants to “claim” him can go ahead and do it, black people [meaning the many many intelligent black people, not a monolith] no longer care.

    Right now, if all of this alleged cheating is true, it shows pretty clearly his fetishisation of whiteness. [For full disclosure of perspective, this is coming from someone who's wife is white.] What you see those intelligent black people doing right now, is laughing hysterically as our suspicions of his distancing himself from blackness gather more and more evidence.

  48. Seattle Slim wrote:

    Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    Don’t forget the One Drop of Blood rule.

    It doesn’t matter how Asian Tiger Woods is. Once he’s got black heritage, he’s BLACK, period.

    =============================
    POW!

    WE don’t create these social constructs sometimes, others do it for us.

    I have two biracial boys superficially (black and white) but if you want to look deep down, these kids are white on my side and their dad’s side, black, native american, Jewish (yes we count that in our household as something other than white) and God knows what else we have in there.

    While I completely understand their heritage and mine, when these kids step out into the world and everyone knows that mommy is black, they’ll be viewed as such and there is not a darned thing we can do to change that in the grand scheme of things….at this point anyway.

    We cannot ignore our history and be upset with others who don’t. If you look at the racial politics of the US alone, it is almost impossible for him to be viewed by any contigent as anything before black.

  49. littleshotlarry wrote:

    And the vast majority of those many intelligent black people are fully aware of and embrace the fact that Tiger’s mother is Asian.

  50. Seattle Slim wrote:

    My major issue with Tiger is that he engaged in a bit of “race pimping” to build a brand for himself. If Tiger was white, he’d be just like the other golfers working the PGA. When they started talking about the “first black golfer” he had no issues then. When endorsements came…no issues then. When he reached his goals, he no longer felt he needed to connect with the section of his ancestry that was most culled–and beneficial–to his success.

    To be fair, a lot of other artists/sports stars do this too. I think Tiger draws the most ire because of his mixed race

  51. littleshotlarry wrote:

    Well, I am concerned that there is an assumption that black folks all want multiracial people to DENY anything that is not blackness. What we [again not a monolith, but I know I'm speaking for many intelligent black people] want is for people to stop constantly trying to distance themselves from their actual blackness while using non-blackness as a magical key to get where they want to go.

  52. Zahra wrote:

    @ Michelle

    I really appreciate your comment about Black people getting tired of other Blacks claiming other aspects of their ancestry; it helped some of the other comments on this list gel for me.

    But it also made me think….I’ve been a bisexual activist for years, and I’ve met a lot of people who identify as both bisexual and biracial or multiracial. Some of them have made a very strong connection between the two, and talked about how growing up multiracial & not fitting into other people’s categories made them interested in other places where our society insists on clear-cut categories at the expense of actual lived experience. That led them to acknowledge their bisexuality rather than opt for a straight or gay identity that was less than the complete truth, or lead a closeted life.

    Tiger Woods was born multiracial, and not fitting the black-or poc/white script with which this country usually categorizes multiracial people. I can imagine him being very interested in the fact that both of his parents were also multiracial, and being invested in not eliding any part of his heritage.

    His father may have a strong African-American identity, as others have said; I don’t know what it would be like to be of Thai and Chinese and Dutch descent in Thailand. But it seems reasonable that Tiger’s own identity would be different from his parents’. I think he codes as “more visibly” multiracial because he doesn’t fit the black/white biracial script or even either of his parents’ scripts.

    So to me his emphasis on small parts of his heritage feels qualitatively different from someone who is working to minimize their Blackness.

    I don’t really know; I’m not multiracial, and I have very strong and clear-cut racial and ethnic identities. But Thea’s point that he, and everyone else multiracial, should have the right to define himself seems incredibly important.

  53. Umm....wut wrote:

    i’m going to focus on a very narrow slice of this article in this response. I liked it a lot in general but there is one part of it that I think could have been unpacked further.

    One of the things that keeps coming up when talking about racial identity for public figures is that for “inauthentically black” celebs, authenticity is often consumed through and controlled by romanic pairings.

    Why is it that tiger could have basically bought his blackness back by marrying a black woman (even if she were equally distant from the “black community”)? How would his having a black (or woc) wife displace the things he’s done or said that have distanced him from blacks? Why would we accept him as more black because he mistreated a woman of color by cheating on her? Why would he be more black if he had used women of color to decieve his wife? That’s the game we play when we entertain the idea that race and romantic relationships are relevant to one another (they are usually only marginally related at most). This feeds into our hyperlinear mentality about racial identity by reducing the complexity of interpersonal relationships to an alinement of prejudices, which in turn allows us to read those prejudices into the mentality if the individual relationship partners.

    I say all this because one of the ways in which tigers racial identity as “not really black” has been determined is through his penchant for white women. This becomes problematic because it conversely means that authentic black people process such a thing as a rejection, or at least as an effector, of blackness. That is not necessarily so. As noted in the article, African American families are usually of multi racial composition at some point in the family tree. The biracial/multiracial experience as it’s own thing is new, but it is in fact very old in our communities. As such, most of us are the decendants of multiracial people. Racial politics have changed, but that change is not something we as a society are prepared consistently address. If tiger is multi racial because his parents are mixed, then the same is true of nearly all African Americans. Being mixed has never, in and of itself, meant not having full membership in black communities should one so desire. What tiger’s authenticity ultimately boils down to is his sport, his taste in women, and his statments, but somehow, his taste in women seems to matter more. It’s a bit of a sexual preoccupation don’t ya think? Tigers majority Asian quantum in some ways makes him more authentically “black” because there are many of us jbs (just blacks) who aren’t black by majority but aren’t considered mixed.

  54. Delux wrote:

    I’m a little done with people deriding Black americans for ‘the black/white binary’.

    Who was it that created that binary and why? Anyone remember?

  55. Tope wrote:

    I believe Dave Chappelle settled this dispute with the race draft. Black people drafted Tiger Woods and Asians got the Wu Tang clan. what is there to discuss now?

  56. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Moth,

    That’s not all entirely correct. I guess I’m a little irked by the tone in the comments because it seems like AAs (and Non-AA blackss; not all of us who are black are AA) should feel like crap for not jumping to his defense.

    The ones that are mocked are the ones doing the mocking. Google Celebrity Seaborn, and there is a video of a light skinned woman who had just gotten a gregarious, long black lacefront wig. The guy behind the camera (this is on youtube) says, “You don’t even look black anymore!”

    Do you know what she says? “Oh WHAT? Don’t insult me like that.” As she shakes her God awful wig she says, “I’m mixed with Filipino and Native American.”

    I don’t know if it was a joke. It appeared to me as though she was being slightly serious.

    The people who flaunt their mixed history, say Nat. Am. that are being taunted are not kind or anything else. They are mean and condescending and that usually pisses people off.

  57. littleshotlarry wrote:

    “I say all this because one of the ways in which tigers racial identity as “not really black” has been determined is through his penchant for white women.”

    The black folk laughing at Tiger Woods are not saying, “oh he is not really black.” They are saying he has a problem with and rejects blackness.

    You sound as if you’re saying the “authentication of blackness” by groups of black people doesn’t mostly have to do with the fear of black people opting out of blackness to benefit from white supremacist society while selling out black people. It does, at least in this case it certainly does.

    It’s not just some black people’s club that we kick Tiger out of because he sleeps with white women. He’s not authentically black, in the cases of relevant criticism of him, because HE opted out, not because black folks said he was.

  58. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lurker –

    My point is that intra/inter-POC problems do not exist outside of this framework at all, and to discuss these issues while ignoring the framework is the precise reason why coalition building fails so often.

    Yes, this is true. So how do you explain the still spectacular failures of understanding even when people acknowledge the role of white supremacy in framing our interactions with each other? Like on Bao Phi’s post about being a model minority? Or Atlasien’s Getting Past the Bears post? Are we, as a blog, making the assumption that most readers will understand the context and frame work in which these things exist and write to a more informed audience?

    Or, better yet, since I’m on the transmitting end and you’re on the receiving end, how would you frame these type of POC/POC conversations? There are various things I could say here in response to your comment, but I realized my perspective comes with seeing full, unmoderated comments and other types of submissions. I think I need a better understanding of where you see things that are not being discussed.

  59. sweeterjuice wrote:

    “And considering the pigheaded way that both white and black America treat him, I’m starting to understand potentially why that is. Maybe Tiger Woods doesn’t talk about race because no one really wants to listen to his experience as the mixed race child of mixed race parents. Instead white and black America insist that Woods choose one or the other. ”

    Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years.

    Leave Tiger alone, already. It’s his ancestry, not yours, and he’s not going to stand there and deny his mother and her family just because it makes some people in Black America feel better.

    @Val wrote:

    “I really don’t think it’s that we got our feelings hurt because Tiger chose not to be African American, it’s more that he used African American-ness to propel him to fame. …So there is resentment because many of us feel like Tiger used his African American-ness just long enough to get famous and rich and then he became Cablinasian. Also, please note that Tiger didn’t publicly renounce/ deny his African American-ness until after he was famous and rich.”

    Okay, as they say over at Wikipedia, [citation needed]. When the hell did Woods “renounce” his African-Americaness? Even in the early days, the fact that Wood’s mom is Thai has been mentioned in the press, and he’s never denied her.

    You know, there’s a lot of talk about how people of different races or of multiple races have the right to self-identify and call themselves whatever they want. Why do so many people hate on someone when he does exactly that?

  60. Zahra wrote:

    @ Umm….wut

    You raise a really good point (several of them, actually). The idea that romantic pairings somehow authenticate or dis-authenticate someone’s identity is pernicious. And it’s worth taking a moment to note it when the idea crops up.

  61. eric daniels wrote:

    “My major issue with Tiger is that he engaged in a bit of “race pimping” to build a brand for himself. If Tiger was white, he’d be just like the other golfers working the PGA. When they started talking about the “first black golfer” he had no issues then. When endorsements came…no issues then. When he reached his goals, he no longer felt he needed to connect with the section of his ancestry that was most culled–and beneficial–to his success.

    To be fair, a lot of other artists/sports stars do this too. I think Tiger draws the most ire because of his mixed race”

    Thank You Seatle Slim, this had been my main problem and some African- Americans with people like Tiger Woods , he and his family pimped Blackness most of his life in Ebony, Right ON and Esscence when it was convenient for them and when they got famous he was “Multicultural” and then stopped giving interviews to those same black mags in the last 13 years of his rise he has shown no respect for those people who supported him in the begining.

    Thea and other defenders of Woods right to define himself well you are right Woods and other Biracial Americans have the right to define themselves as they see fit, but they do not have the right to play the racial games Tiger Woods has played and that’s what many African – Americans are challenging, it is racial hypocrisy on the highest level and it makes those whom choose to identify as Black suspect in the eyes of many A.A.

  62. The Chemist wrote:

    As someone of mixed race myself (albeit not involving either African-American or Asian ancestry) I can say with confidence that in my personal experience, people don’t like it when you shift your identity in a discussion, code-switch, or suddenly decide to remain silent on a racial issue.

    I can tell you right now that “choosing” to identify with one race at all is considered tantamount to abondoning the others.

    Woods calling himself Cablinasian is not him abandoning Black. It’s right there in the mix. It’s a case of him refusing to abandon the “Cinasian” just to identify as black. Some mixed race people are always careful to qualify that they are a mix, because they feel they’re slighting one group or another by not making that clear. Others, like myself, simply use the race of convenience at the moment, whatever that may be. Either way, we still piss people off, (even in our own families) so I’m inclined to sympathize with Woods when he refuses to enter the racial arena by whatever means he deems necessary. It seems that he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

    I even understand his marrying a white woman in this context, though in reality I don’t think you should ever have to explain your partner’s ethnicity to anyone for any reason. However white people are, for better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, considered racially neutral. If he’s been desperately trying to avoid issues of race, then he may have found it all too easy to relate to a “raceless” white woman. Meanwhile, for someone who is mixed race: dating outside your race is not difficult. After all, your parents did it. Why should he hold himself to an arbitrary romantic standard?

  63. The Chemist wrote:

    I need to clarify here, when I said:

    I can tell you right now that “choosing” to identify with one race at all is considered tantamount to abondoning the others.

    It sounds a little like I’m saying I consider it tantamount to abandonment, rather than other people from the left-out groups. I’m saying other people do tend to presume that by identifying as mixed race, you are engaged in a kind of de-facto denial of the specifics.

  64. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Win to Tope! And where is D.C. when we need him?

  65. yolanda wrote:

    Well, I am concerned that there is an assumption that black folks all want multiracial people to DENY anything that is not blackness.

    littleshotlarry–this, as well as your other comments, have been on point. thank you.
    ___
    black people have NO problem with those who identify as multi/biracial. alicia keys, halle berry, mariah carey, and MANY, MANY others throughout history have been fully embraced. the above mentioned examples have stated numerous times their racial mixture, and no one bats an eye. as littleshotlarry and others have said, the difference with tiger is his actions. no, there isn’t a monolithic black community, but there is something called not trying to move as far away from that as possible. it’s very hard for people who aren’t black american to truly understand the racial construct and what goes along with it, it’s evident in this article.

  66. Moth wrote:

    @Seattle Slim

    I never said that anyone should jump to Tiger’s defense. In fact, the comments I was addressing don’t refer to people taking issue with how Tiger ID’s but people who take issue with multiracial people who they feel aren’t multiracial (because they’ve appointed themselves the arbiters of race) ID.

    People who claim mulitraciality get mocked regardless of whether or not they mock others. Celebrity Seaborn doesn’t represent all mixed people. As Tim Wise says in his essay “Rationalizing the Irrational: Racism and the Fallacy of Personal Experience” http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/rationalirrational.html

    “Second, to draw conclusions about large groups (in the case of black folks, some 36 million people, and for Latinos, another 37 million or so in the U.S.), based on one’s experiences with a handful of people from those groups is the very definition of statistical illiteracy. Even if you had encountered dozens of folks from a particular group who, for whatever reason, had rubbed you the wrong way, this would be such a small and obviously unrepresentative sample, that to reach any conclusions about that group as a whole would be absurd. ” In other words, even if you’ve met or seen dozens of youtube videos of mixed people who hold the attitude you condemn in Celebrity Seaborn, that still wouldn’t mean most mixed people are like her.

    Anyone who simply claims multiracial or NA heritage risks being accused of flaunting having multiracial or NA heritage and being accused of being unkind, mean, and condescending.

  67. Thea Lim wrote:

    Hm. Some thoughts:

    Apart from the paragraph talking about how some may be hurt that Tiger doesn’t align himself from blackness, I refer to the treatment Woods gets at the hands of white AND black America, or I refer simply to American culture in general.

    My intention there was to point out that Tiger Woods (and folks whose heritages are not “straightforward” enough) get the shaft within a racist culture. The backlash – from all sides – against the term “Cablinasian” is very exemplar of that.

    I neither believe, nor intended to say, that ALL black folks are SO ANGRY that Tiger doesn’t admit he is black. Or that in general black folks are super mean and petty towards poor old Tiger.

    I also (as I stated in the post) very much understand why it is disappointing and frustrating when a famous, incredibly successful POC doesn’t align themselves with POC-ness and instead claims to transcend race. (I think John Cho’s openness about the difficulties of being POC in TV and movies is why we have a category called Cho-licious.) That response (one that I share) is not the same as calling a mixed race person a race traitor.

    This article is about the people (of many races) who over the past week, prompted by the slew of white women claiming to have had sex with Tiger, have ignored or denigrated the complexity of Tiger’s background. This is a response that I have been seeing all week on both mainstream and subcultural media outlets.

    I just wanted to state, clearly and explicitly, that this article is NOT about the way that evasive monolith of Black People think about Tiger Woods. An article like that would not get run on Racialicious.

  68. blackstocking wrote:

    First, I don’t know where all this black folks is mad at Tiger because he cheated w/ white women stuff is coming from. Please ask a real black person or two or three before you take stuff said on CNN seriously.

    A couple of morons make statements and suddenly all black folks (esp. women) is mad at Tiger. I’m not sure if this happened because some black pundit theorized that the public wouldn’t have cared if the mistresses were black.

    In other words, it is the media that is stoking this fire because America is still put off by the idea of a black guy (really Asian guy I know) getting it on with that many white women. Black women get to carry the banner of intolerance regarding interracial sex.

    I agree w/ Moth. I find it offensive that the author dismisses “the interracial pairings embedded in my family tree.”
    Many of us multiracialized black folks can be seen all around you every day and on TV (did you catch Rihanna this weekend on SNL)? Lots of us black folks is “part this and part that.” And you’ll have to pardon us for claiming Native American heritage; we are only repeating family folklore. Some of us don’t know that it is now politically incorrect to attribute our “long hair and high cheekbones” to our “Cherokee great-great gandmother.” Chances are the hair is actually from out Irish-overseer great-great-grandfather/rapist.

    I won’t generalize, but the author’s take on who gets to be multiracial and who doesn’t confirms my suspicion that some recently minted biracial (any combo) and multi-racial (and multi-ethnicity too) folks want to be seen as distinctly privileged (special) as oppossed to us folks who got our mixed-race/ethnicity credentials generations ago.

  69. Adrienne wrote:

    Why are we ignoring the racist jokes Tiger told about Black people or the way he handled being told that they won’t be serving fried chicken and collard greens at a golf dinner?

    Why are we ignoring Tiger’s actions and words that spoke negatively of Blackness and Black people???

    No one would guess by my post that even though I am Black, I agree that mixed race people have the right to choose their identity.

    What I object to his Tiger’s statements that appear to reveal a feeling that being Asian, Native American, White is good, but Black is bad.

    And yes, no one would know that I come from a family where I have cousins, and uncles who are White, and not by marrying into the family, but because not that long ago, some family members passed for White. Some were Chickasaw and White passing for White.

    I didn’t take offense in the statement about Native Americans, because I understood it. There is a great misconception due to many Black Americans not knowing family history. On my end I know family history because the elders told the truth, even truths that confound our society’s classifications of race as one or the other. I’m aware that I can claim Native American if I want to, and if the conversation is relevant, because of my relatives being on the Chickasaw Rolls, and because of my living relatives who are the children of those people listed.

    I think maybe we should not jump to assumptions about a valid point made by intelligent Black people who have criticized Tiger in the same way we would criticize another Black person who made statements or took actions that appeared as if they felt something was wrong with having Black ancestry but were proud of every race else in their ancestry.

  70. Lurker wrote:

    Latoya,

    You know, this is a toughie. I think the only way to hold an honest and constructive discussion about issues of racism between and amongst people of color is to center white supremacy and break things down from there. And by that I don’t mean centering white people and what they do, necessarily. I mean, when questioning internalized racism, asking questions like “how does this ultimately work to oppress people of color and privilege whiteness?” because really, that’s what’s relevant here.

    I think we need refreshers on Race Theory 101, but tailored to a mixed group of people of color. That would be interesting!

  71. eric daniels wrote:

    “Why are we ignoring the racist jokes Tiger told about Black people or the way he handled being told that they won’t be serving fried chicken and collard greens at a golf dinner?

    Why are we ignoring Tiger’s actions and words that spoke negatively of Blackness and Black people???”

    Adrienne they don’t get what we are saying, If a white person said the same things about African- Americans we would call that person racially insenstive, because Woods has some “black blood” he gets a pass I don’t think so. Tiger Woods is no different than any other non- black person and it’s time we held him to the same standards we as A.A. hold others who are racially insenstive.

    Woods wants to be non- racial then he should have answer for his anti-black statements through the years and we as A.A. need stop begging him or any other Person (Sammy Sosa) to embrace the black side of his/her self because through his actions he does not have the character or strength to be “BLACK AND PROUD”

  72. BSK wrote:

    I didn’t realize it wasn’t common knowledge that Tiger’s mom was Asian. I am actually surprised to here she was part white (Dutch). I assumed just the opposite of the author: I knew Tiger was Asian and thought his white heritage was more distant.

  73. atlasien wrote:

    @Lurker: I disagree. Sure, white supremacy is the most dominant racial force in the U.S. and in the world in general. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only force. We live in a globalized environment where ethnic tensions that are thousands of years old, and have nothing to do with white people, have now become racialized in the modern day… Just because white supremacy is so prevalent shouldn’t mean it’s the only thing we can talk about. Just because white European people invented race does not mean they are the only ones perpetuating it today. If every white person in the world disappeared tomorrow, we’d still have to live with race and deal with race, because it’s a self-perpetuating system. There’d be someone else at the top of the pyramid, but the structure would remain.

    Finally, I don’t like the idea of Race Theory 101 because that implies Race Theory is something everyone agrees on, instead of a chaotic and rapidly evolving field. I think there’s consensus on this site on a few basic issues, but otherwise, people disagree on lots of theories and approaches.

  74. Moni wrote:

    Zahra and Moth,

    Thank you for your words. As an African American with Native ancestry who identifies as African American, I have found it problematic when I have attempted to “come out of the closet” as being of Native American (Creek/Seminole) descent. It is not acceptable in the activist black communities that I am connected to, and it is not accepted in the Native American communities that I try to be an ally to. I have had people online and in person, deride me for speaking about that aspect of my ancestry. People seem to feel especially irritated cause, to them, I look “regular black” (the phrase was actually used). I have found that it is really not beneficial to me and may actually be detrimental to me if I speak about my ancestry. So I “cover” I suppose. It is not that I am trying to assume a Native identity; I am totally comfortable and in love with being black! But I do feel disingenuous when I am asked to check the boxes that I “belong” to and I just put African American. Maybe one day I will feel comfortable that no-one will take away my “conscious Black woman card” if I check Native American as well…

  75. atlasien wrote:

    I don’t think Thea, or myself, really has anything to say about jokes that Tiger Woods has told, or actions that he’s taken to distance himself from black communities. We’re just asking that those actions be considered as a separate issue from his multiracial identity.

    1) There are monoracial AND multiracial-identified people that are proud of their community/ies.
    2) There are monoracial AND multiracial-identified people that suffer from internalized racism, and do not show that pride.

    That’s all I’m arguing for… a simple 4-part classification. I don’t know where Tiger Woods falls because I haven’t followed his career. I’m not interested in automatically defending individual multiracial people from charges of hating, because they’re just as capable of hating as monoracial people! But just because they identify as multiracial, as a choice, it doesn’t follow that they are then haters… and a lot of people seem to think that.

    Not everyone. Absolutely not everyone, and absolutely not “all black people.” That would be really wrong to generalize. But still, a sizeable amount of people. I notice wherever I see a lot of “Tiger Woods hates black people” judgments, I usually don’t see much evidence to back that up other than “he called himself a Cablinasian.” But for specific actions, if he’s fond of telling racist jokes, and has done so in a documented way, then yes, he should be judged for that and I have no interest in defending him.

  76. Denise wrote:

    I’m new to your site. I like it. Good topic to discuss race and pop culture.

  77. Lurker wrote:

    Atlasien,

    “Just because white European people invented race does not mean they are the only ones perpetuating it today. If every white person in the world disappeared tomorrow, we’d still have to live with race and deal with race, because it’s a self-perpetuating system. There’d be someone else at the top of the pyramid, but the structure would remain.”

    Right…unless we work to eliminate these structures. I don’t understand how you are refuting my point.

    “ I don’t like the idea of Race Theory 101 because that implies Race Theory is something everyone agrees on, instead of a chaotic and rapidly evolving field”

    You can say that about any field of social theory. Any subject matter, period. Shit changes, shit happens. There are fundamentals within systems of oppression, though, and whether we all agree on them or not is irrelevant if we aren’t even discussing them.

  78. Beantowner wrote:

    Long time reader first time poster. I’m bafflled by the article and by atlasien’s post mainly because of the seeming lack of knowledge about what a lot of people consider basic Tiger lore. Everyone knows Tiger’s mother is Thai and most people are painfully aware of the Esquire article featuring racist jokes. Analysis of Tiger’s racial heritage will and should take into account stuff like comfort with telling racist jokes to a reporter of a national magazine. A lot of black people who checked out on Tiger did so for reason. Its baffling to me that those who chose to defend/understand/analyze know barely seem to know anything about the man.

  79. April wrote:

    @Thea:

    I think the first problem is that you assumed that since you were not knowledgeable of Tiger Woods’ racial background (which, I must say, surprised me!), then most other people aren’t, either. So far that’s not backed up by the people commenting here. We may not be representative of the U.S. public at large, but nonetheless I think your assumption is faulty.

    I also think your post did single out and grossly generalize black (and white) people’s attitudes toward Woods. You even characterized these groups’ treatment of him as “pigheaded.” There was no mention of other racial or ethnic groups’ perceptions–is it only white and black people who deny multiracial people’s right to self-identify as they choose?

    Lastly, regarding the part about Tiger Woods not looking black: o rly? You may not be trying to claim Woods as Asian, but you do sound like you’re disparaging people who consider him to be black. (Note: Doing so does not mean they don’t also recognize him as Asian and multi-racial.) That probably wasn’t your intent, but that just goes to show how much choice of words matter.

  80. Celeste wrote:

    @Moni: That’s awful that you aren’t allowed (can’t think of a better word at the moment) to speak about your NA ancestry just because other people don’t think you look ambiguously black enough.

  81. ericael wrote:

    For whatever reason, I think most black folks were very well aware of Tiger’s Asian heritage. I’m with the people who are surprised that someone was surprised to learn that about him.
    If anything, in my family we thought it was stranger that he identified as partly Caucasian when that seemed the most distant element of his background.

  82. Moth wrote:

    @Moni, you’re welcome : ) Do you know right now the National Museum of the American Indian is doing an exhibit on Black Indians that addresses many of the issues in your post? There’s also a book they published, Indivisible, that goes with the exhibit. Please don’t let anyone bully you away from your heritage. People who tell you you don’t look Indian, whether they are Indian or not, are using a stereotypical image created by whites as their measuring stick. If you haven’t, I would encourage you to seek out the large body of information available online and in books on Black Indians. Also, I hope you find an NA community that welcomes you. Take heart, the tribal nation elders I know wouldn’t tolerate you being rejected.

  83. Adrienne wrote:

    I am going to think about this:

    “We’re just asking that those actions be considered as a separate issue from his multiracial identity.”

    because my eyes got big and I said “wow” as I automatically thought how does one do that?

    Is it really possible for our actions to be separate from our racial identity in areas that have to do with race? Wow…gonna chew on this.

    And watch “The Tiger Woods” story, it talks about his telling racist jokes and being disturbed that they were recorded by the media.

    I have not heard Tiger or his camp oppose that movie’s portrayal of him. The movie was pretty even handed in their portrayal of him. He wasn’t demonized nor was he put on a pedestal.

    For the record I don’t care that he calls/called himself Caublinasian nor do I consider identifying as multiracial as “hating”. Not with my family history of multiracial people who chose when to be Black (or when to be White), when to be the M marked down in the census bureau for multiracial folks.

    Anyway here is the 7 page GQ article that shares the jokes Tiger Woods shared about Black people….to a White male interviewer for a lifestyle and fashion magazine that is geared towards mostly White men who have money:

    http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/199704/tiger-woods-profile

  84. Adrienne wrote:

    For clarification’s sakes, I meant to quote all of this, not the last sentence only:

    “I don’t think Thea, or myself, really has anything to say about jokes that Tiger Woods has told, or actions that he’s taken to distance himself from black communities. We’re just asking that those actions be considered as a separate issue from his multiracial identity.”

  85. Ann wrote:

    I hardly believe all the racial fractions that so many celebrities like to denote themselves as being. In particular, having “Native American” blood seems to be the most popular and yet when genetic analysis is done on these folks, it proves that they never did have an Native ancestor. I find the claims particularly ridiculous considering that Natives are a pretty rare presence in metropolitan areas and yet they have had the opportunities of mating with Puerto Ricans, Irish, Dutch and African Americans (according to a good majority of Hollywood from people like Rosario Dawson to Mary J. Blige to Tom Welling).

    In the case of Tiger, I don’t believe that his mother is anything but Asian with the Dutch ancestor just another attempt at “exotizing” their heritage. Like when many Filipinos like to claim having “Spanish” blood even though there is no truth to their claim. It’s baffling to me that people are so quick to accept verbal confirmations of one’s racial heritage without any proof to back it up. I find that a lot of people like to “exoticze” themselves by presenting their racial heritage in fractions, many of the times which are inaccurate or flat out false.

    While it is quite possible that Earl Woods has white ancestory (as most black Americans do), I believe the Native aspect is hearsay and not based on any fact whatsoever. Even so, I don’t think that it’s necessary for Tiger to have to bring prominance to this aspect of his heritage as it’s a part of most black’s in the States and how ridiculous would it be for every black person in America to go around proclaiming to be “part white” due to a distant ancestor.

    In any case, Tiger has never sit well with me and he is now reaping what he has sowed. Regardless, his father was a black man and while I understand and support his need to acknowledge all aspects of his “raciality”, he seemed hell bent on distancing himself from his “blackness”. If you need proof, look no further than this mess he’s gotten himself into.

  86. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Adrienne –

    Thanks for dropping that link.

    @Lurker –

    I mean, when questioning internalized racism, asking questions like “how does this ultimately work to oppress people of color and privilege whiteness?” because really, that’s what’s relevant here.

    I think we need refreshers on Race Theory 101, but tailored to a mixed group of people of color. That would be interesting!

    Well, that’s the problem. We could roll with race theory 101, but that doesn’t mean people would agree. If you head all the way back in the archives, you’d see that a lot of people cannot agree on how we discuss racism, let alone how we define it.

    Combine that with the fact we are talking about many different communities at once, with many different communities at once, all with different perspectives who want to be heard.

    It makes things like this a bit difficult. To put it in this context:

    1. I put up an open thread about Tiger Woods, because I felt like there wasn’t much to say on the matter. Sister Toldja had an interesting take, because she was looking at the argument in an existing context with conversations about race and dating within the black community and provided her perspective. But I didn’t think too much beyond that – I did hear of a few “if she was a sistah/dating a white girl” jokes but nothing that really motivated me to post. However, that’s my perspective as the editor and as a black person.

    2. When Thea mentioned she wanted to do a post about the whole mess, her perspective was different enough for me to take a look. Multiracial people on this site often feel as though their concerns are overlooked in favor of monoracial perspectives on issues (this occurs over many different posts and different groups, not just blackness). I was actually trying to e-persuade some writers I know to come over and write about being outside of the discussion binary, so Thea’s piece worked in that measure.
    I gave my advice, some of which she incorporated, some of which she didn’t. But ultimately, I looked over the piece and gave it the ok.

    3. Comments went more or less like I thought they would. More people are participating, which I did not consider. Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.

    So here’s where the long form perspective comes in. I know on any post about multiracial identity (particularly when one of the races is black or white)

    a. Some people will write things that will refer to blacks as “claiming” or prescribing others racial identity. Some of these people are trying to articulate how dismissed they feel when others claim to speak for their experience as mixed race people. (i.e. when jokingly or not, someone refers to what the police would do). Other folks say the same thing, but are doing so to express their disdain for blackness. Both groups are using the same language – motivations are just different.

    b. Some people are not interested in an articulation of multiracial identity, in any form. It is very easy to say “I don’t care how someone identifies” or “people can identify as they wish.” But if you start looking at the aggregate of comments you realize there are a lot of people who say they don’t care – yet take instant offense at an articulation of politics that are different than their own.

    c. Using multiracial celebrities to discuss multiracial issues is often helpful as it allows for a lot of people to access the topic. It is harmful in the effect that celebrities aren’t static examples – they are living breathing people. So people tend to project a bit more/have more or less background knowledge about the person. And that influences the discussion. Thea’s post looks at a long standing issue with Woods – contention over his identification. And she is using the recent discussion of Woods as a jumping off point, which resonated with a lot of mixed race readers. However, many (but not all, by any means) black readers filled in a lot of what Thea did not touch on from a different reference point – one of Tiger Woods’ iffy history with race. Which casts the piece in a different light.

    Could Thea’s piece have been improved had she included a paragraph about identity which looked at the why Woods framing of identity in the context of white supremacy, why it appears that he was distancing himself, and how this binary was posed in part by the media and other white golfers, who did not seem concerned at all how Woods himself identified? Yes , I think so.

    But I also think it wouldn’t have ultimately made much of a difference in terms of how people perceived the piece. Now that I’ve outlined what could have been done, I wouldn’t be surprised if folks said “well, if Thea had said it that way, I wouldn’t have had the issues with the piece.” But past experience tells me that people would have still lodged many of the same complaints I am seeing in the comments queue. Bringing up differences that could possibly reflect negatively on certain groups always prompts this kind of reaction, regardless of disclaimers, explanations, and level of analysis.

    So when posting things like this, the issue gets murky. When I post two conflicting perspectives on a movie, people disagree but don’t react personally to different views. When posting different perspectives on racial identity, it’s always taken personally. And I don’t think basing an argument in white supremacy will mitigate that.

  87. Moth wrote:

    @Ann

    Race is a social construct, not a biological reality. DNA testing cannot tell whether or not someone is a certain race. Natives being “a pretty rare presence in metropolitan areas” is a common, yet inaccurate, belief:

    The other part of this idea was that I am usually downtown Toronto hanging out on King Street West out for fancy cocktails or dinner at a beautiful restaurant. No one that meets me in that environment would know that I am Native. I felt like I blended into the multi-cultural mosaic that is Toronto and that the only way people would recognize me as Native is if I somehow emulated their vision of what a native woman looks like (beaded bucksin). So the imagery is a part of those pre-conceived stereutypical constructs that non-Natives place onto all of Native women today. I even overheard someone say while shooting “Look Pocahontas is crossing the street.” One of the only ways that I as a Native women living in the city can be recognized as such is to don stereotypical garb that non-Natives can recognize — http://www.lisacharleyboy.com/2009/11/concrete-indians.html

    FYI, interracial relationships are not “mating,” nor does what you *believe* define what somebody else is — particularly since your beliefs seem to be predicated on a racist view of NA’s as provincial peoples who haven’t formed all kinds of relationships with all kinds of peoples. Furthermore, no one is anyone obligated to prove their authority to you because you think they don’t look the part — you remind me of cops who demand that people who don’t meet what their idea of an American looks like demanding proof of citizenship. It’s odd how many people say, “All black people have white in them so black people shouldn’t bring it up.” That statement presumes the reason you bring up parts of your heritage is to be unique — it precludes the option that someone is bring up their heritage to be WHOLE. Finally, the idea of heritages being distant comes from the pseudo-science of blood quantum.

  88. eh wrote:

    Sigh the author could have started off describing the changes in the U.S. Census. Look in the 20th Century the Census FORCED people to choose. Heck my family was split into and kicked off the reservation (the famous comb tests). Before a certain date you could id as multi -racial. Black Americans ARE a mixed people. There is only one (recent) ancestor (in my family) who was 100 percent African (illegal trade). Even the most ignorant black Americans knows that black Americans (North and South) are mixed. Some states had miscegenation laws from the beginning but others didn’t (especially territories). IN the 2oth century there were only a few states that allowed interracial marriage. So when people talk about their great great grand parents being other than black (in the American sense) well some African Americans roll their eyes. Heck many white Americans are “racially” mixed as well. I’ve also found that people tend to see the “racially” features they want to see in people. If I’m around white people they think I’m mixed, (recently so) South East Asians think I’m 100 percent South East Asian, Arabs think I’m Arab, and Latinos think I’m Latina. Because my recent ancestors (going back to the most recent U.S. Census) marked black (in some cases because they had to) I id as black, I mean lots of people didn’t have a choice. Now sure
    Woods Sr.’s parents may have wrote in other (if that was an option) I really don’t know (or care). but some people give Woods Sr. (RIP) the side eye because it really isn’t that different from the “black” experience. On a side not, I feel very sorry for Tiger’s wife, she shouldn’t have to put up w/ infidelity.

  89. eh wrote:

    Ann apparently you haven’t heard of the Great Black Migration have you? Some of my family members have their tribal (by blood) cards, some of them do not (and still live by the Choctaw reservation in Oklahoma) some of my family members moved to Detroit and LA during the Great Migration (Texas and Oklahoma were very bad places for African Americans in the 20’s and 30’s). So that’s how people in L.A. and Detroit can have significant Native ancestry, you know people move. It was only in college when I met a former Choctaw elder, that I was moved (by the elder) to rectify the situation (going back to the Dawes Rolls). Also you do realize that some tribes had slaves (the Cherokee did). You should read up about the Civil war in Indian Territory. I was shocked that Oklahoma public schools teach about slave owning Native American tribes.

  90. Jason wrote:

    I agree with Lurker

    @ Latoya: “We absorb many of the narratives dominant culture has assigned to us. And we absorb those narratives that the dominant culture has provided to us about others. And often times, we do not see the need to challenge them. Yes, sure, its really easy for us all to be anti racist when we point the finger at white supremacy. But when we look at how we perpetuate divisions within ourselves, how communities divide against others even when we are working for the same goal, and part of that is because many of us hold our own beliefs too close to hear any one elses experience. Instead of listening for overlap, we listen for differences. We allow our selves to perpetuate them.”

    I agree with this, but I think “pointing the finger at white supremacy” ( to rephrase, -naming the system(s) that oppresses us) and identifying how we perpetuate those divisions in our communities are not mutually exclusive acts they are interrelated. So to me dealing with the contentiousness you point out has to (at some point) involve looking at our (multiple) roles within that structure which is what I took out of Lurker’s posts. I feel like our “divisions” are contingent on our relationships to the structures that divide us and in that context, POC-on-POC problems has everything to do with white supremacy because we are implicated in and by it -we participate in it and sometimes we “benefit” from it even if indirectly…

    sorry I’m cross posting I just noticed your recent comment

    “Bringing up differences that could possibly reflect negatively on certain groups always prompts this kind of reaction, regardless of disclaimers, explanations, and level of analysis.”

    I agree to a certain extent for me I felt like the article really diluted the complexity and the range of many black folks’ reaction to and opinion of Tiger Woods I felt like it was really disingenuous to reduce that reaction to “an insistence that Woods choose one [side] or the other”

    I’m just gonna speak on my thoughts as a black person
    Some of the reaction and perception of Tiger Woods and his identity from black folks is or maybe problematic I’m not going to deny that. My problem isn’t the idea that there are racialized folks out there who are hostile to or intentionally/unintentionally negate the realities and experiences of mixed/multi-racial people or other pocs that is a reality. My problem is this: as fucked up as it is or seems there are (sometimes complex/multiple) reasons for this -and I feel like it’s crucial to recognize that WHILE still managing to critically look at and or interrogate these behaviours without pathologizing them which is usually what happens when any issue among pocs is looked at in the dominant culture.

    So again I agree with Lurker because I think when we can discuss tensions in and among our communities and connect them to the structures which maintain and produce them makes it a more meaningful and comprehensive discussion. Since the behaviour has a context there is more opportunity to examine it form a variety of perspectives.

  91. ashlynn wrote:

    This post is making me a bit queasy.

    Tiger, by nature of his sheer personal confusion regarding his heritage, has become one of those “I don’t see race types.” He may not publicly acknowledge it, but it’s that sentiment that allows him to (now) enjoy that disconnect to Black issues, political or otherwise. I’m going to go out on a limb and further agree that it’s that colorblindness showing up when you see that all of his side girls are White.

    I don’t like playing the numbers game at all, though I understand that Thea felt it necessary to break Tiger’s heritage down to dispel the myth, I suppose. Honestly, it didn’t help- so, statistically speaking, he has more Asian ancestry, but what matters is what he identifies with.

    To reiterate, Tiger was black when it was convenient for him to get in the door. And once he got in the door, not only did he disregard that heritage, but disrespected it several times as well. So no, Black people aren’t out trying to force ownership of every mixed person out there, including Tiger, especially if you are so inclined to not even respect that heritage. That trope of the scared little mixed child shunning the dark skinned part of their heritage because somehow the whole community wronged you is really getting old.

    I wouldn’t dream of denying anyone the right to identify themselves, but at the risk of disparaging one in order to be favorable or acceptable to the other, that’s something I simply can’t rock with.

  92. ieishah wrote:

    @atlasien said . . .
    I don’t think Thea, or myself, really has anything to say about jokes that Tiger Woods has told, or actions that he’s taken to distance himself from black communities. We’re just asking that those actions be considered as a separate issue from his multiracial identity.

    i don’t understand a world where what you ‘is’ and what you ‘do’ don’t coincide.

    your identity— your family, your physiognomy, your education, your desires, your friends at school, that first person who broke your heart, that traumatizing experience with a dog or with water or at an amusement park, the first time you were called a ‘nigger’ or a ‘bitch’, your relationship to the church or to sex, including how you identify in terms of race–IS A CRAZY COMPLEX MATRIX. the idea that tiger woods’ relationships to race/racial identity are:

    1) unproblematic, as if they are unproblematic for ANYONE living in the modern world, and dictated only by biologically inalienable truths (he’s a quarter this, a quarter that… and though you say you hate fractions, thea, you’ve used them here to make your argument. and a disclaimer doesn’t change that.)

    2) should/can be separated from his relationships to people…

    as if!! i don’t even know where to begin with that one! i think lurker, adrienne and i have a different perspective on the role race plays in, well, LIFE. race is always at play with other factors in what make up the entirety of your existence, sometimes in ways you can’t even begin to imagine. if carmen’s workshop on how race impacts your ability to be yourself wasn’t an expression of this, i don’t know what is.

    furthermore, like many of the black posters here i’ve got to add, i’ve never cared about ‘claiming’ tiger woods. nor have i ever cared about who he bangs. call him asian, call him black, man from the freaking moon… the one thing i’ll never call him is hot. so there’s that.

    also, i know when i smell issues. and the only reason we’re even having this conversation is that it’s been revealed that tiger has A LOT of them. with race, with romance, possibly even with pills… i’m sorry… anyone who tries to tell me tiger’s not a deeply troubled man and that somehow ‘race has NOTHING to do with it, let him self identify’…. hello? everything points to the fact that he struggles in that regard. his public and private faces couldn’t be more gemini! couldn’t be more at odds! he carried on like 9 different relationships! it’s like…. i wonder what zizek would have to say about this… it’s uncanny!

  93. Orville wrote:

    I agree and disagree with the author of this article on some issues. The Asians will allign themselves with Woods because he is very successful. However, why didn’t the author of this piece discuss the racism in Asia against blacks?

    I have spoken to Asian people and some do not consider woods “Asian” they see him as black. While some Asians I have spoken to like Woods because he is very “successful” in golf.

    However, an issue the author did not discuss is the deep seated issues Tiger has within himself. It is obvious to me and I think to black people that the reason Woods does not view himself as black is because blacks are viewed as INFERIOR in the USA.
    Woods alligns himself with the Asian community in the USA because this is viewed as less “INFERIOR” than to be African American.

    I am cognizant of the fact you cannot just call Woods “black” but I don’t think the author of this piece explored enough why Woods WANTS to viewed as “just” ASIAN and WHITE. Woods white hertiage may be in percentages but in his phenotype his apperance he certainly does not LOOK WHITE. White America is NEVER going to “accept” Woods as one of their own.

    Of course, I know that Tiger’s mother is Asian and his father is part African American. However, I think it is disingenious for the author to state Tiger looks Fillpino NO he does NOT. I look at Tiger and to me he definitely looks more black than Asian that’s just MY personal opinion.
    Does Tiger have to identify with African Americans? I agree with the author of this article NO he does not and I WISH black Americans would give the man a break.
    Tiger Woods is a man of colour and people should leave it at that. However, the author did not strengthen her article enough to explain why in America Woods is viewed as African American by the white media?
    Also, although Woods does not identify as African American he is MARKETED as an African American. Do not be fooled by Woods comments yes Woods himself says he wants to distance himself from blacks because he sees himself as mixed race. However, in terms of making money and making over 1 billion dollars his marketing team is using “black” as a code word for “groundbreaking” in a mostly white male dominated sport golf.

  94. Orville wrote:

    I also want to say the author is off base when she says black women are mad that Tiger has sexual relationships with white women. I disagree STRONGLY about this. The black women I have spoken to don’t care for Tiger Woods.

  95. Crystal Marie wrote:

    *STANDING OVATION* to Ashlynn’s comment. Yes, a millions times YES!

  96. atlasien wrote:

    @Adrienne: “Is it really possible for our actions to be separate from our racial identity in areas that have to do with race?”

    I think there has to be some degree of separation when it comes to multiracial people, because if there’s not, analysis quickly turns into scapegoating. It’s too easy for people to think like this…

    “If a person identifies as X, they love X.”
    “If a person does not identify as X, they hate X.”

    Yes, this is sometimes the case, maybe even often the case… but it’s not ALWAYS the case. And believing it’s ALWAYS the case is one of the biggest psychic problems facing multiracial people, whether they have black ancestry or not.

    Sometimes a person does not identify as X, but they still have love, or they identify, but without love.

    Thanks for the GQ link. I don’t really know that much about Tiger Woods, I’ve never had any interest in defending his actions because I don’t know enough one way or the other. I’m just one of those people with zero interest in sports, my family is the same way, and I actively ignore anything to have to do with it. That’s why I would usually never poke my head onto any sports-related thread, without the multiracial angle.

  97. pololly wrote:

    Many issues with this article and the privilege laden comments, which have been effectively addressed by many others (inc Latoya)

    HOWEVER

    Obama example doesn’t fit with Tiger in the slightest. No parallel AT ALL. Obama identifies as a black man and has addressed race HEAD ON even when it may have cost him. He wrote TWO books on it, gave the More Perfect Union speech on race and intervened in the Skip Gates incident.

    I’m honestly offended by the subtext of your comparison which is that you think that black people need someone to be jigging down the white house with a pick in their hair or making everything about ‘race’ to be a non-traitorous black person’. We are in one of the biggest recessions seen since the Great Depression, health care is precarious, abortion is yet again under threat, two wars in the Middle East, terrorism, the planet is crumbling, no one can even say the word immigration never mind discuss it and so on. What ‘racism’ topic is Obama not dealing with? His approval ratings are still strong amongst black people.

    It’s an offensive comparison because the subtext is that black people are unsatisfiable or irrational. No one’s good enough unless they’re banging on about being black all the time. That’s NOT true and, as if any proof was needed, Obama is proof of that. Please.

  98. pololly wrote:

    Btw,

    Did a Ctrl-F on the article to confirm – the word privilege didn’t even come up ONCE. I guess now white supremacy’s over, we can all get back to chiding the black community for it’s ‘close mindness’.

  99. Moni wrote:

    Celeste and Moth,

    I have to admit that I have been on the side of silencing certain aspects of identity myself. When I started really researching my family ancestry, my mother was interested and insisted that I look for documentation of the Native parts. I bristled, and asked her why she was so interested in it since we are black. She simply said that it was part of her history and she had a right to be interested. That moment gave me pause and coupled with my evolving understanding of multiracial people’s identity perspectives, I have become more “tolerant” for lack of a better word, and accepting of people’s identification, regardless of how they look.

    That being said, I am still ambivalent about actively identifying as Native. It is obvious from the discussion here as well as elsewhere that black folks who do so risk losing their credibility in the eyes of others, and as a social justice educator, researcher, and writer, my credibility is important to me right now. So it is less a case of me being bullied and more a case of me making an active decision not to assert that aspect of my ancestry at this time. Again, it makes me think about the decisions that multiracial people have to make in certain contexts…especially in a place like Brazil, where I currently live and do research.

    Moth, I do know about the exhibit, but I am out of the country until September. I am considering purchasing the accompanying book though…I know my mother will be interested in reading it.

    Ann,
    To piggyback on eh, to state that there is little possibility of seeing Native people (or people with Native ancestry) in urban areas is incorrect. There was a big urban relocation movement by the government in the 50’s, I believe. According to some of the things I have read, more Indians currently live in urban areas than in rural areas and reservations. There are Indian resource centers in most urban areas. Not to mention the whole “Great Migration” thing that moved so many blacks from the south to the north (I am actually a 1st generation northerner…my mom was born and raised in rural Louisiana and Arkansas)…I do suggest you and anyone who is interested, look at the website for the exhibit Moth mentioned. http://www.nmai.si.edu/exhibitions/indivisible/

  100. atlasien wrote:

    @ieishah: Tiger Wood’s race isn’t something isolated. You’re putting words in my mouth. But it doesn’t completely determine his actions either! That’s all I’m arguing… a simple principle that should hold true for any person.

    Just because he identifies as multiracial does not therefore automatically mean he is confused and loves to cheat. He could be a confused cheater for other reasons as well. One of the strongest stereotypes about multiracial people is that they’re confused. That’s as simplistic as it gets. You’re arguing for complexity? I’m arguing for complexity too.

  101. Medusa wrote:

    Admittedly, I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I loved this article and
    a) (and this may once again be chalked up to my not being American) I never saw the big deal about the episode on Oprah where he defined himself as Cablinasian (and the fact that he’s brown-skinned doesn’t make him “more” black, I mean, he could easily have had really light skinned “black” ancestry and darker skinned Asian or Native American ancestry that may have accounted for his coloring) and as was mentioned in the OP, his face looks quite South Asian. It’s not like he’s that girl who was on that one episode of Tyra who appeared phenotypically completely black but was completely trying to distance herself and went as far as to carry around a confederate flag and a robe…

  102. Jess wrote:

    @Latoya – hope this doesn’t get too lost here, but if it helps any I think — and I am drawing form some old memory files here, so if there is anyone else out there who can talk about this, great — OJ got a lot of flack for when he divorced Marguerite Whitney and was hanging with Nicole Brown (he was still married when he was dating her). Marguerite Whitney was black — they got married in Buffalo in 1970(?) or so.

    So, we have a black man who is leaving his beautiful black wife for a blonde beauty queen. Ouch!

    The tabloid aspect wasn’t anything like today, of course, but IIRC there was a lot of grumbling in “the black community” (whatever that means). Nicole, by the way, was like 18 when they met (there is some idea she may have been younger but I don’t know of any proof of that), adding another layer of creepy to the whole thing, by today’s standards. But it wasn’t like OJ was 40 or something. (Interestingly, OJ was like 19 when he married Whitney 10 years prior).

    The formation of the BPP, “Back is Beautiful” and the appearance of big ‘fros were pretty recent memories at that time. (ca. 1980). So I would bet (and not being a cultural historian I am throwing a poorly-formed hypothesis out there) that had something to do with the reaction, at least for African-Americans.

    I would also make a bet that it is the reason so many people were unhappy with OJ’s lack of interest in issues relating to the community. He was a far cry from the 1968 Mexico City Olympics or even Dock Ellis. (His career began in 1970, when all that stuff was at the forefront of the public consciousness).

    At least Ellis was willing to challenge the baseball managers with his hair. (And you have to respect a man who can throw a no-hitter while coming down from an acid trip). A lot of black celebrities were coming to grips with this stuff and OJ seemed to be missing that boat. Or not caring, which is just as bad appearance-wise.

    Getting to Tiger, I don’t think he is “confused” at all. Anyone of mixed race, myself included, has to grapple with things. You also have to deal with the fact that other people see you a certain way. To ashlynn’s point I don’t think it’s about being “blind” to race, in the sense you are talking about. More like being acutely conscious of it and making a decision that you want no part of the craziness.

    In my case, the fact that my grandma suffered terribly for being Japanese and married to a Jew was impressed on me (and her husband suffered as well), and my family was committed to certain kinds of social change as a result. In Tiger’s case, I don’t know, he may have decided that he didn’t want to get into it.

    I can’t read his mind. But I certainly would understand if he said “Screw all of you.” Hell, I’ve felt the same urge. It comes from a thousand people telling you how to ID and telling you what you “should” do, who you “should” date or marry, all that. It makes you want to just take what you can and say “hell with it. If it gets me paid that’s great. If it doesn’t then I don’t care. The rest of you can piss off.” It’s not a great reaction. But it’s a normal one, I think.

  103. pololly wrote:

    Thea

    This is objectively a great post in that it has clearly stirred up some feelings and discussions amongst the readership. But I do think that a lot of the facts in the post have pretty much been discredited through some fairly perceptive comments. I’m way too angry to even step into the wider debate re ‘ownership’ and the race draft – without even an acknowledgement of privilege, this is an automatic racefail for me. I do think that if a lot of multiracial people and black people seeking multi racial heritage could even review their own posts and see how they read, they would understand a lot of the hostility they encounter.

    Anyway, leaving that all aside, can you please address the claims of your post in light of the fact that;

    1. It is clear that most black people know and did know his Asian heritage before this incident.
    2. There are well documented cases of Tiger Woods speaking disparagingly towards black people.
    3. Tiger Woods and his management previously solicited and benefitted from an alignment with the black community.
    4. Tiger Woods is an asshole of the greatest proportion and many people, of all races, are just happy to see him fall.

    Ok, point 4 is just my opinion LOL but seriously, it does read like you pass off some really legitimate claims as irrational bias and it’s frustrating to say the least.

  104. Lurker wrote:

    Latoya,

    I have no idea how I’d realistically approach editing an anti-racist website from the back end, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

    You seem to be worried about how your work will be received, but I think if you touch on the fundamentals of systemic oppression and build from there, you’re ultimately going to be helping (and teaching) more people, even if we put our hackles up. And we all will! Racism is not fun, ya know, and all of us have alot to unlearn and deal with. But it’s also not fun to read articles that are “about race” that don’t aim to reach any conclusions.

    So again, in my opinion, speaking of -isms without acknowledging the history and structures which go to perpetuate these systems is…pointless. Truly.

    Also, Thea:

    I want to apologize for my excessive snarkiness yesterday. It was completely unnecessary.

  105. Sam wrote:

    Latoya -

    I’m multiracial, and while I don’t personally deride groups for “claiming” someone…I do understand the frustration and I think it stems from resentment, because so many of us (who, you know, aren’t famous) don’t get claimed by anyone – and in fact get rejected from defining ourselves as a member of x group. My experience of being multiracial hasn’t been about belonging to multiple groups, but about belonging to none.

  106. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lurker (and Jason) -

    You seem to be worried about how your work will be received, but I think if you touch on the fundamentals of systemic oppression and build from there, you’re ultimately going to be helping (and teaching) more people, even if we put our hackles up.

    Well, it is important to think of how work will be received, because if too many hackles are up the message is missed. And that’s important, particularly since here we are concerned with the quality of the conversation. And that happens with a variety of issues.

    In addition, we have to do this type of balancing against pieces that discuss racial identity, often told through personal narrative. Here’s an easy example of that – we ran a piece by Sarah about a construction of Jewish identity and she did not mention the role of Israel in her identity. A couple other commenters took issue with that, but if it is Sarah’s story, I don’t see why if Israel did not figure prominently to her that she would have to discuss it.

    We don’t just work from a theory frame either. Things are complicated.

    But, I hear you (both) and since my way isn’t working as well as I’d like it to, I’m willing to run some pieces to try it in the way you suggested. I am going to ask all submissions (particularly those dealing with POC/POC issues) to base their argument in the context of a white supremacist frame work and see if that does anything.

    @Sam –

    I can understand that. I’m just saying people use the same words to mean very, very different things.

  107. bdsista wrote:

    Well, mine was the comment that was not published last week, so I am glad that it got put into the article this week because as a Diversity trainer, I have heard the comment about what Cablinasian meant and the code language around it from many people who are AA.

    My ex-husband and first cousins are a mixture of Black and Asian, Black being French, African, and Piscataway Indian and Cherokee (husband) and Asian being their Japanese Mothers. So, I found it ironic to have my comment withheld when I have grown up with “Tiger” and married “Tiger” all my life. Perhaps I made a generalization, but there is a lot of dialogue and genealogical work around Black and Indian mixtures particularly in the east coast.

    thanks LaToya for clarifying why Black folks and especially old Black folk like me take the conceps of solidarity and support related to identify very seriously. I grew up during segregation and the civil rights movement and believe me the police in Oakland were not interested in statements about being multiracial, they looked at you and treated you accordingly-still do. Black folks know Tiger is biracial, cosign Val and Michelle! Yes, tell it!

    Black people (not all-but a hell of a lot of them) DO care about Tiger and what he symbolizes. My 82 yr old Father who has golfed longer than anyone on this board has been alive, loves Tiger and was VERY disappointed by his denials and distancing. This same man cried when Vanessa Williams became Miss America and when Barack Obama became President saying, he did not think he would live to see the day when these things would happen.

    What has NOT been discussed in this fiasco is Tiger’s seeming lack of interest in Asian women as well. I knew all along he was half or mostly Asian, but he doesn’t seem to be interested in dating Asians either, which in my opinion (see big disclaimer!) is reflective of his self hate or at least having some internal race issues. I think who you date does reflect an aspect of how you were raised regarding race, character, attractiveness, etc. I tend to seek men who are like my Father, not necessarily physical traits, but other parts of him that I feel a necessary for a good mate. Of coure my parents have socialized me to want specific characteristics like (he must be college educated, he must be family oriented, etc.) none of those are race based. I have and do IR date, but I have never solely dated one group and rejected specifically those men who were of my racial mixtures. Tiger seems to gravitate to the White Beauty standard, and many on this and other blogs want to give him a pass b/c he attended white schools and he plays golf which is white and his world is white. I say, oh hell no! I and my friends have attended white schools, my friend was on Hopkins Fencing Team, a brother I went to Skegee with was on a Lacrosse team and many of us grew up playing tennis and golf AND basketball and we still date within our race. So no pass for Tiger on those grounds. I must say I have enjoyed these postings even the ones I didn’t agree with because I think this dialogue is really productive.
    For a good explanation of the one drop rule, read In the Matter of Color by A. Leon Higginbotham. The book explains the origins of all the race laws in America.

  108. Jason wrote:

    Latoya, thanks for your comment. Yes I see your point I don’t have a problem with talking about racial identity through personal narratives/articles they are just as necessary as any overarching systemic analysis I just see those experiences as being connected to any kind systemic structure we are trying name. although *I get* that we don’t always perceive these structures when sharing our personal experiences. I look at it like when talking about homophobia, sexism, colonialism etc. and their impact in our (poc) communities on the one hand we are talking about our experiences and our frustrations, the negative effects, the ways we have been rejected by our communities the way our identities and relationships within and between our various communities is conditional (because of these structures). On the other hand it is important to take the real and very raw personal reactions and experiences that we have and connect them to something larger. I think that connection is needed for us to deal with how we make sense of and deal with this stuff. This is why I really -really l i k e d your post when you broke down the claiming

    I don’t want to see any articles talking about personal experiences to be prefaced with any disclaimers or anything thing like that, when reading about (or sharing) those experiences though, I would like to make connections between some of the issues that may come up.

  109. mieko wrote:

    @bdsista
    -I still don’t understand why someone would need a “pass” for dating outside their race.

  110. Da Rule wrote:

    This topic is interesting for the fact that many people can’t grasp why Tiger needs to emphasize his racial identities. The fact is he like all of the citizens of the US are more or less obliged to do this. Confounding this is that African Americans want Tiger, with his status and success, to emphasize his African/Black identity as a statement against the historical over emphasis of African/Black ethnic identity by the white community in North America . Maybe this is seen as a valid reason for emphasizing Tiger’s African/black identity, and as this article has revealed, he doesn’t have to. The ‘Cablinasian’ statement is possibly a fend off from this apparent expectation for Tiger to be African American and fight for their rights. Who has the more valid view?
    I think it is not so interesting when somebody emphasizes their racial identity. More interesting is the aspect of that person’s attitude to their own identity.

  111. pololly wrote:

    Getting to Tiger, I don’t think he is “confused” at all. Anyone of mixed race, myself included, has to grapple with things. You also have to deal with the fact that other people see you a certain way. To ashlynn’s point I don’t think it’s about being “blind” to race, in the sense you are talking about. More like being acutely conscious of it and making a decision that you want no part of the craziness.

    Jess I hope that I am not quoting you out of turn but I have a feeling that this thread will be closed soon and I really want to articulate my issues with the post and how they are so neatly summed up in this statement.

    I personally believe that whatever Thea meant to say, this is what she meant basically and that this is the subtext of most of the comments which are agreeing with her. We (meaning black people because generally white people in this context means white society which is assumed to act so as to protect white supremacy) don’t even know his racial background, we’re so irrational that even Obama isn’t good enough for us, we’re all against IR (that old chestnut) etc etc.

    Yes plenty of black people may have poor reasons for disliking Tiger Woods and yes those are hurtful and marginalizing to POC from mixed backgrounds. But I can’t believe that on *racialicious* that’s as far as the analysis goes. Look at the last part of your statement: making a decision that you want no part of the craziness.

    The thing is: it takes privilege – lots of it – to even have a *choice* in whether you want a part of the ‘race craziness’. White people don’t have to partake. They can ignore it any time they like. The labelling, the names, the ‘claims of solidarity’, oh so complicated and annoying. And I guess plenty of multiracial people can do this too. I may be stepping into controversial waters but I think that given the black – white binary of race in this country, I think some other non black POC can succesfully do this as well. It’s tough, it’s crazy and they don’t want to deal. But I think that calling it ‘race craziness’ (and I’m not picking on you Jess because I think it’s implicit in Thea’s piece and her response and many other comments) somehow flattens out the debate in a way that ignores a)privilege and b)white supremacy. Cos it’s like saying ‘god, why all those whites and blacks just knock it off, get on with their lives and stop trying to tell him who to be’. It’s implicit again in the way it is grouped with his IR marriage. It’s no-one’s business, just give people the benefit of the doubt.

    Well, apart from that being a touch insulting given the fact that the ‘facts’ Thea learned this week are fairly common knowledge to most Af Ams that I know at least, and ignoring the negative statements that Tiger *has* made that again many Af Ams are aware of, it also ignores the fact that it is hard to knock it off when no one’ll let you. Fun life: you have to carry the burden for every wayward or misbehaving black-seeming POC but when a POC who explicitly appeals to their black identity to *benefit themselves* then turns their back on you, you are supposed to be the bigger person? I’m sorry but no.

    YMMV but two things strike me even just from this thread:

    1. Many people have a massive investment in painting POC, esp black POC, as the ones with ‘teh problem’ when it comes to people being themselves and getting away from the ‘race craziness’. This is so similar to what white supremacy constructs about POC’s experiences that my irony button is broken.

    2. I apologise if I’m wrong cos the comment thread is long but I haven’t seen anyone take issue with Thea’s ‘math’. Race and blackness especially is a social construct. So if someone identifies as black, then they are black. So if Tiger’s father identifies as black, he is a black person in his own eyes who has a mixed heritage. So Tiger is what? Well he is whatever he identifies as BUT appealing to a mixed heritage on his black side to give justification to distance himself from ‘blackness’ is offensive. He should appeal to the truth of his identity as he sees it but not to an ahistorical reading of the construction of black identity which ignores the millions of mixed heritage Af Ams. I disagree with your math that should move Tiger into a different category than someone like an Obama who is ‘half – half’.

    That is prob quite rambling and all over the place so I’ll try to be clear:

    i. Identify how you like
    ii. Discussions of racial identification should be sensitive to the historical context of that identification. So for example, someone 1/8 NA may identify as NA. That may seem crazy to non NA people but actually not so much to those who understand the history. But starting with the statement that ‘you’re only 1/8, why on earth would you do that’ is offensive. Context is important.

    Af Am identification has never been about the 1/4 and the 1/8 for many reasons – cultural identication, white supremacy, one drop etc. So having a discussion which starts by saying ‘he’s only a 1/4 black, why on earth should he?’ is offensive.

    He *shouldn’t* have to identify as black but that is not dependent on him reaching some minimum threshold of black blood in his veins. But by trying to reduce ‘blackness’ to the percentage and limit it is completely ahistorical and completely denies the experiences of black people for hundreds of years and is a slap in the face to people of mixed black heritage (nearly everyone) who identifies as black. It also seems very limited for multiracial people also. We replace the one drop rule with the 1/2 rule – how is that more ‘enlightened’?

    Now you’re probably gonna say ‘well, we’re sick of being 1/4 non black minority and no one acknowledging that’ and that’s fine. But until we document some time in America’s history where large swathes of people are trying to ‘pass’ the other way, i.e. aggressively choose their black identity for social gains then maybe some sensitivity is called for.

  112. TJustSaying wrote:

    Okay I see some of her points. But Tiger has the skin tone of a Black man. When racist use the N word they are not going around with a scientific beaker measuring your racial makeup they go on looks. His curly hair dark skin are black traits. At the end of the day color is basicly judging a person by how he looks and not the content of his character. And of course they are not going to worry about the genetic makeup of his parents.

    I will not debate the fact that Tiger looks more Asian then Black because there is an easier way to find the answer. How many Asian women would date and or marry a guy with similar facial features, skin, and hair tones of Tiger woods. The answer to that question tells us how you really feel about Tiger’s ancestry.

    And about the racial dating I do not have a problem if Tiger happened to fall in love with a White girl here and there but my question is does he feel Black women are less and that he is upgrading when he dates a White girl? If he would not even look at any Black women it does give me pause. Last time I checked love was not a skin color but a condition of the heart. And if he finds that White women are BETTER then Black women then yes it is a type of racial sellout.

  113. Celeste wrote:

    Oh my gosh, polloly you’ve just really articulated my sentiments about this whole issue. Especially number 2, that math is fishy. It somewhat relates to what bdsista said too regarding other “Tigers”. I’ve have been near obssessing about this whole situation for the past few days because I’m afraid that it could possibly happen to me. I’m multiracial black in an obvious way and what happens if my afroasian kids ever rejected, downplayed or *placed in equivalence to* my white/asian/NA ancestry the black racial identity that is my sole racial identity? That freaks me out sooo much. I’d have to take a moment to compose myself. Perhaps Earl placed much more emphasis (as opposed to simple acknowledgment) on his nonblack ancestry than most black americans (and I) would have and I think that’s how the black 1/2 somehow has been reduced to a 1/4th. It moves Earl from being a black man with multiracial heritage to a multiracial man with black heritage, resulting in his nonblack ancestry being made available for fractions. That is their choice to make. However, using ancestry to further your career and then discarding/disrespecting it when you’re on to bigger and better things is wrong.

  114. bdsista wrote:

    @mieko
    when I say Tiger doesn’t get a pass, I meant that for Tiger to say he made up the word Cablinasian because to say he was just black would be to deny his Mother.
    see
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/the-blackness-of-tiger-woods/

    But I was referring to people trying to excuse Tiger’s apparent fetishization of WW by referring to his school, upbringing, sport, etc. as a pass.
    He’s free to date whom he likes, but don’t make racial statements and talk about wanting to acknowledge your parents and your heritage, blah blah blah and then turn around and act like women who look like your parents aren’t worth your time or your penis. That’s what pisses (some) BW off about all this.

  115. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @Moth,

    Let me clarify. What I am saying is in the context of those being mocked, those people decrying being mocked whenever they mention “Oh I got Indian in my blood” are usually saying something ignorant like “I got good hair” right before it.

    If my kids say “I’m black, white, Nat. Am, Jewish, etc” and they get mocked that’s wrong. But if they say (and over my dead body they will) something like “I got good hair” or “(insert another way to other oneself from being black or whatever other race in a derisive tone here)” then yes they deserve whatever insult or mockery they get. It’s life.

    Traffic nin BS get paid in BS. Plain and simple.

  116. Seattle Slim wrote:

    @bdsista

    Great point. His actions are fishy. I am sure he has met gorgeous women of all races, especially those on that paper chase/groupies. All of the groupies popping up now fit a certain aesthetic. Which is fine, but suspect.

  117. Jess wrote:

    pololly, I actually agree with you on a lot of it — when I said Tiger may (and I don’t know) have decided to have no part of the craziness I mean on a conscious level — that is you just sort of say “screw it” and think you’re done. It doesn’t mean that it reflects reality, but it’s a coping mechanism. Like I said, it isn’t a great reaction, but it is understandable.

    I mean, look at the reactions to who he decided to date. If I were him reading this, I’d be like, “since when do I have to check with anyone else?” Given that the race of who you love has been such an issue for black men especially, this might seem disingenuous. I mean, there’s a whole history there.

    But at the same time we have to recognize that while a lot of things might be true on a macro-level, the way we experience it individually can be different. It’s why Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell exist, you know? If every black person (or any other PoC) experienced racism the same way they’d all think alike about it. But look at what Thomas has said about affirmative action.

    So even though we all know Tiger can’t get away from being seen as ‘black’ in the US, and maybe he knows it too, that doesn’t mean you might not say that you just don’t want to deal with stuff anymore than you absolutely have to. And money can insulate you from an awful lot.

    Does that make sense?

  118. Mrs. R. wrote:

    Thank you, polloly! It seems that whenever interracial relationships or the progeny that result from it are discussed, we’re in for a round of “pin the blame on the Black people.” Blacks are painted as the scourge and bane of mixed folks’ existence.

    I feel all this being pissed off when Black folk try to “claim” them is not wanting to be lumped in with society’s “losers,” which is how they see Blacks. It’s interesting when other races purity is valued but Black folks’ impurity is what makes us better somehow, the ol’ “anything BUT Black” trope.

    If mixed folk don’t wanna claim us then why should we claim them? There seems to be a bit of a oxymoron going on in many of these comments. If Black people try to claim a mixed person, then we’re being limiting meanies (and trying to damn them to our hideous Black fate). If we don’t then we’re policing our Negro borders unfairly. Sorry, but I’m neither interested in being around folks who want to spit on me or have me worship their “difference.”

    Trust, when I and others say that many of us evil Negroes let Tiger’s ass go a long time ago. Despite Dave Chapelle, we’re not trying to gank his butt in any racial draft either. The evil darkies are NOT holding him back.

  119. mr guy wrote:

    I agree with Jess at comment #100. Just wanted to say that.

  120. Jason wrote:

    @ pololly
    cosign! really excellent post!!!

  121. Guy wrote:

    What I find interesting (as someone mentioned briefly above) is that Tiger Woods is a practicing Buddhist. I wonder what part his non-Christian identity has played in reinforcing his so-called “Asian-ness” and setting him apart from the rest of the African-American community.

  122. mieko wrote:

    I’m worried that I’ve gotten into a misunderstanding with some people regarding my earliest comment. No one’s addressed me specifically, but a lot of these posts are getting at what I was talking about, so let me clear up my POV :

    In my experience I have dealt with many black people saying to my face that they had problems with me and others specifically because of my/our mixed heritage and the fact that I/we wore it proudly. I have never denied being black, nor have I wanted to. I am proud of it- but the fact is that I am not only black. I am primarily Asian (Japanese), and Latina (Mexican). I am also mixed with Cherokee, French, and German, yet I do not identify as white or Native American because I have not had enough experience with those sides of my family to feel like I can properly wear that.

    When I stated earlier that I would empathize if Tiger was angry, I stand by that. If he experienced what I did (and sometimes still do experience, and what- from hearing from other people who ID as mixed have experienced) I would be angry as well, yet that is no excuse for denying your heritage. I have not experienced this attitude with my asian descended friends nor with my latina/o friends, so this is why I stated “much of the black community” in particular. As far as many white strangers are concerned, I feel that as long as they see me as not one of them they don’t particularly care. An other is an other in their eyes, so they don’t have to spend time worrying. For the people who have had problems with me it is different- I share kinship, and yet I “don’t”- therefore the “problem” of my background is higher stakes.

    I understand the histories surrounding the one-drop rule and the white/black binary and claiming, yet I believe that continuing this using the master’s tools- it can not lead to anything productive. We must actively recognize and accept all kinds of beauty and legitimacy as a people, and expand our definition of the in-group.

    If it appeared like I was making generalizing statements, or claiming that I am a better person because of my mixed heritage I apologize. I certainly did not mean it that way, and sincerely hope that no one took it like that. I for my part feel that some of these posts are belittling my and others’ mixed experiences and misunderstanding our desire to say “in addition to X” as “instead of just X”. Something is obviously getting lost in translation here.

  123. eh wrote:

    I didn’t notice before, but Tiger is standing next to his mother in this picture, which I think colors how people id him. I wonder what the comments would have been if he was standing next to President Obama, or say Joe Biden.

  124. MoeHailstone wrote:

    Well, lets put it like this..when he was not allowed to step on those Orange County courses he didnt say he wasn’t allowed on those courses because he was Cablinasian now did he?? Nor did he say they weren’t allowing him on those courses because he was asian, he said he wasn’t allowed on those courses because he was black. Totally abandoned and made sure he was not seen as black once he made it. So the backlash is valid

  125. KDS wrote:

    Just wanted to say I found this article problematic for the many, many reasons that others have noted. I’m a regular reader and I’ve gained a much better understanding of multiracial identity from the blog, but the analysis in this piece really fell short – disappointing and insensitive (toward black folks).

    Thanks pololly! Great analysis!

  126. ashlynn wrote:

    @mieko,

    what’s getting lost in translation is that you keep referring to “most of the black community”, which is a bigass community, and therefore it doesn’t appear that you are generalizing, but you actually are. If you had said “In my experience, many people i’ve come across…and I would venture to say many more believe that,” that would have been understandable. Nevertheless, trying to correct that is appreciated.

  127. brownstocking wrote:

    Thank you @ everyone, especially pololly and bdsista. I couldn’t quite put my finger on why the OP unsettled me, but I think you (and countless others whose names I’ve forgotten, apologies) have summed it up well.

    This is a real question: why is it that Black folks knew about Tiger and his biases/self-hatred/confusion from almost the get-go, but other ethnic groups (as they’ve identified themselves) didn’t? I think that points to something significant as well.

    @mieko, thank you for clarifying, because I found your initial posts as inflammatory to me. Interestingly, I entered young adulthood in a place where I was considered an oddity because both of my parents are Black, and was treated differently. In one of my branches, we are “slumming” if we marry Black. Isn’t it interesting/maddening/sad what environments and families can do?

  128. Phil wrote:

    I’m Thai and so is my wife. Everyone from a big city in part Chinese. I’ve never heard of Tiger Woods mother having any European ancestry.

    I, for one, do not claim him as Thai. Part Thai, Part black, but American.
    Woods himself has never claimed to be black or Thai. He has always emphasized his mix race.
    Perhaps most interesting is that I don’t know anyone who actually says he’s a nice guy. By all accounts when ever he went to the Thai temple he kept to himself. Perhaps he learnt everyone wants something from him.

  129. Orville wrote:

    Phil, I disagree with you Woods has always claimed his Thai heritage and always made an emphasis that he was more Asian than African American.
    Woods has a right to identify anyway he wants because it’s his life. However, the mainstream American media have branded him black. Now is that fair? I don’t think so because Woods is mixed race.

    However, Woods has also made some racist comments about black people and black culture even though he is part black himself.

    Woods I believe has deep psychological issues that he can perhaps get help through a professional therapist. I think Woods is confused.

    Even though Woods phenotype he clearly looks more black with his dark skin and kinky curly hair. Woods has always distanced himself from African American culture. Even though Woods made $1 billion dollars based on the fact he was marketed as the Jackie Robinson of professional golf. Although Woods will never admit this his marketing team at Nike and other major companies definitely marketed Woods as a black man. Woods conducted a lot of press with the black media when he first emerged into the public consciousness in the late 1990s. It is disingenious of Woods to suddenly act as though the black media did not HELP his career when they did.

  130. anon wrote:

    Just my 2 cents, on the “we got Indian in our family” phenomenon. One of the previous posters mentioned that impurity is condoned for Black people, but not for others. I believe this is very true, and one of the many reasons that you may hear a Black person say,”I have X, X, and X on my mama side, and X or X on my daddy’s”. It’s a form of self hatred. If only you could be something other than “just black”, you would be pretty, handsome, valuable, noticed, and most of all, not black… On the flip side, if I had a nickel for every white person I’ve come across claiming some distant, vague “Indian Blood”, of course I’d be rich. But…they seem to do it for entirely different reasons. They want a touch of “le exotique”, so that they aren’t boring, bland, and normal. Only a bit though, not enough to call into question their white blood quantum because that would mean the loss of privilege.

    On a side note, Tiger is just doing what his upbringing, personality, society, and environment has mapped out for him. I’m a black woman(no recent mixture), and I’m not mad about Tiger preferring white women, but I’m also married to a white man, so maybe that colors my perception to a degree.

  131. thebiblophile wrote:

    Random question: how do we know that all of the womyn are white? They are white-skinned/pale-skinned phenotypically, but that doesn’t correspond to their racial/ethnic identity necessarily.

    One of the womyn has already identified herself as Native/biracial – her mother is white and her father is Native. And I would bet that not all of the womyn who appear to be white actually are…

    This has been one of the most fascinating conversations. Even as folks have disagreed it’s been an amazing learning experience. I will say I noticed a few things:
    - I wondered if those who are multiracial/biracial felt silenced, as their voices seemed to become increasingly less present as the thread continues
    - It was a powerful conversation about anti-black bias and assumptions about the Black community, even within groups of people of color
    - How do we have the difficult conversation about how white supremacy can for some impact the gaze, so that even that most elemental thing, our sexuality and desire for another, can be constructed to follow the script of white supremacy. It’s telling, I think, that so many of the womyn who Tiger allegedly philandered with, are also people who seem to struggle with their identity or cover/pass or laud a certain kind of whiteness.

    I’m really struck by Tiger’s humanness – and not in a way that makes me feel like he should be forgiven or let off the hook. But in the sense of his fallability – the realness of his grief over losing his father, how truncated his life has been in many ways, even the fact that the media and world have taken him up for conversation (though fascinating conversation, really, who am I to be all up in Tiger’s business?). He cheated on his wife. Fail. In trying to perhaps prove his masculinity, he revealed himself to be sloppy and needy. He’s not a very clever man as he was apparently an awful, sloppy cheater. Fail. He’s never been lauded for a particularly kind or interesting character. Fail. And try as he might to transcend race, in many ways his entire life has been, inescapably, about his racial identity. The one thing he tried to avoid, put in place, negotiate, he couldn’t ever figure out how to side step. It has never left him and has ultimately defined and constricted him in ways he can apparently neither see, acknowledge or understand.

    In that GQ article he sounded to me like an immature 21-year old with limited opportunities to really grow and understand himself – not only as a person and man of color, but also as an adult. And that there was a possibility, foreshadowed in that article, that Tiger would be eaten alive between the disparity of who he is, who he wants to be, and the demands of the media/society’s panopticonic demands of who he should be. For me that doesn’t reduce or change any of the thoughtful, great comments and analysis here, but I kept thinking about the people – his wife, his children, his mother, Tiger himself, who have to live with his faults, misunderstandings, immaturity, maybe STDS, maybe other children, and painful confusions. I feel sad for him, in the way it is always sad, to see a person of color disappear into the “matrix” of confusion about identity, or participate in sexist or problematic behavior.

    But damn, what a conversation….I could read all day.

  132. Moth wrote:

    @Phil and Celeste

    Excuse me if I’m reading this wrong, but do definitions of heritage compete with each other? For example, is Thai different than part Thai? Is being mixed preclude being wholly and simultaneously multiple heritages? Does claiming multiple heritages lessen ties to the components of those heritages?

  133. MaryG wrote:

    I left a comment yesterday, I think but don’t see it. In a word, I agreed with what PPR_Scribe wrote at comment #23 and suggest that the author, Thea, read (and perhaps re-read) it. There are other comments here which echo PPR_Scribe as well.

    Thanks and good luck.

  134. Emmeaki wrote:

    #85 # Ann wrote:

    I find the claims particularly ridiculous considering that Natives are a pretty rare presence in metropolitan areas and yet they have had the opportunities of mating with Puerto Ricans, Irish, Dutch and African Americans

    Do you not know that Puerto Rico was inhabited by Taínos–”Indians” before it was colonized by the Spanish? I won’t even go into the history of African/Native mixtures in this country or the colonization of the Philippines by the Spanish. And Natives certainly were not rare hundreds of years ago.

    You seem to have disdain for blacks who claim their native ancestry, but it’s not a crime to state your heritage. You say that Earl wood’s Native ancestry is hearsay. How in the world would you know. Have you done an in-depth study of his genealogy?

    I am a black person with Native and white ancestry. My mother told me my family history and I have pictures of my great-great grandmother to prove it. Obviously because of slavery and such, a lot of blacks don’t have a written account of their ancestry, but they have the information that was passed down through the generations. There is no other PROOF than that.

    I don’t want to exoticize myself. I am a black woman, but people often try to exoticize me because of my hair texture and complexion. If I say that I am not mixed, they keep pushing–then I have to bring up my great-great grandparents on my mother’s side. This is interesting because my father is from Sierra Leone and looks stereotypically “African” in the way that Africans are portrayed in the media and in the way a lot of people picture Africans in their minds.

    I think it’s absurd that mixed people, especially those with parents of two different racial/ethnic groups are pressured to claim one group over the other. If tiger Woods was a few shades lighter would people still be calling on him to identify as just black? I don’t think so. If a person is mixed with African ancestry and they choose to identify as just black, it’s their choice, but no one should be forced by the “race police” to check one box if they don’t want to.

  135. Mrs. R. wrote:

    I will give this to Tiger. He’s not done an OJ and run to the Black community for support. He hasn’t gone running to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson and asked them to take up his cause. He’s not appeared at a Black Church looking for backup. Tiger has kept the Black community OUT of his mess and hasn’t asked us for shit. He’s at least done that for Black people. He’s keeping up his end of the ostracism bargain.

    And yet again, many Blacks are NOT trying to claim Tiger’s ass. The main reaction I’ve gathered from Black folk around me is either that of indifference or schadenfreude because he so busted his ass to make himself out to be not like us lowly nigrahs and now his image is shot. But honestly trying to claim him? I mostly see “He’s on his own now,” and that seems to be how he likes it (on his own=estranged from PoC).

  136. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Comments are now closed on this post.