Revisiting “100% Cablinasian”: 6 Thoughts on Tiger Woods

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

It sucks when your readers don’t like what you write. It really sucks when they hate what you write. But – and this may reflect badly on my personality – I learn the most from posts that I eff up. It’s the failures that really drive me to try and better at what we do here.

In 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 her to approve it before posting it. Usually I just write something and put it up – these extra steps were taken because I knew that I was dealing with a sticky subject. Yet even in my preparations, I completely failed to understand how sticky a subject I was dealing with.

So after much thinking, talking, and about 40 emails with Carmen and Latoya, here are six things that I want to say about Tiger Woods. A lot of this I already said last week, but I did it badly. If you were to read “100% Cablinasian” outside of the context of Racialicious and outside of the context of my writing, it propagates stereotypes about black folks. That’s unacceptable, and that’s why I am writing about Tiger Woods again.

Tiger Woods is perceived to be black, and his behaviour is interpreted in terms of blackness.

Within American culture, Tiger Woods is perceived to be black. Two early examples:

From Jan 10, 2008:

Faldo and Tilghman were discussing young players who could challenge the world’s No. 1 player toward the end of Friday’s broadcast at Kapalua when Faldo suggested that “to take Tiger on, maybe they should just gang up for a while.”

“Lynch him in a back alley,” Tilghman replied.

From Apr 7, 2002:

Asked about Woods’s victory at the 1997 Masters and the traditional victory dinner – at which the new champion gets to choose the menu – Zoeller remarked: “That little boy is driving well and putting well. You pat him on the back and say congratulations and tell him not serve fried chicken, or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.”

Woods has been the butt of the anti-black racism since he came on the scene. This is a problem because
a) Hello, these “jokes” are disgusting.
b) Woods is not just black – he’s Cablinasian, or Blasian as he recently texted to Jaimee Grubbs.

But while it was clear before his philandering scandal that Woods was seen as black more than he was seen as Cablinasian, it has become inescapable since. Woods’ philandering is being interpreted via stereotypes about black men: he’s spectacularly unfaithful, and he has a hankering for white women. Within American culture’s racist conception of black masculinity, this is textbook behaviour. In other words his bad behaviour is the result of the fact that he is a black man, married to a white woman.

Some folks are using Tiger’s scandal to reinforce narrow beliefs that black men need to get it together and black women are unloveable. You don’t need me to tell you that that’s just plain racist and ignorant. Instead, what I wanted to focus on in “100% Cablinasian” is how media, comedians and bloggers are using Tiger’s behaviour to probe the issue of successful black men dating white women and distancing themselves from blackness when they become successful. See the Sister Toldja bit that we cross-posted a while back.

Or this Wanda Sykes joke:

Wanda Sykes stopped by The Tonight Show last night to take a few shots at him with Conan O’Brien. “It just got to the point where I was like, ‘Okay, I can’t do anymore jokes on this man. I can’t do it.’ But more stuff keeps comin’ out,” she said. “Women after women after women. I’m like, I had to stop for a minute and go, ‘Wait a minute. Did I have sex with Tiger Woods?’…. Then I was like, ‘Oh wait a minute. I’m black. I’m cool. I’m cool. …

Generally people are using this flashpoint of successful black men dating exclusively white for a quick laugh, and I will admit Wanda’s joke made me LOL.

But not only is this stereotype wrong because like all stereotypes, it’s reductive – it also doesn’t quite fit Tiger Woods. Tiger is black but he’s also Cablinasian; solely applying the framework of black masculinity onto him to explain his behaviour is going to force certain scripts on him that potentially don’t apply. And usually, the forcing of these scripts is done at the expense of understanding how Woods’ mixedness might inform his stepping out.

Interpreting Tiger Woods’ philandering as a “black issue” implies that the Black Community is full of jealous, petty in-fighting.

One of the major errors I made in “100% Cablinasian”?

There are two problems with painting Woods’ philandering as being about blackness:
Problem 1): Doing so effaces Woods’ mixedness
Problem 2): Doing so reduces black folks to gross stereotypes.

I raised Problem 1, but I didn’t raise Problem 2, which is this: using Woods’ behaviour to talk about how all black folks think about relationships, is inherently stupid. Black folks are not a monolith, black folks obviously have a vast range of ideas about Woods’ identity (if they have any at all), and black folks have a vast range of ideas about Woods’ philandering, if they have any at all.

I didn’t speak to Problem 2, because that’s not what I wanted to write about. I realise now that was a big mistake. In order to write the article, I quoted sources that were painting Woods’ scandal as a black thing, raising the spectre of both Problem 1 and Problem 2. I then talked about all the things that were wrong with Problem 1. But in doing so, I allowed Problem 2 to stand unchallenged. Sure, Problem 2 wasn’t the issue I was going after, but I quoted sources with problems 1 and 2. By not acknowledging Problem 2, I was propagating it. That was wrong, and very sloppy.

To illustrate:I quoted this from an Associated Press article,

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.

This article plays up quotes from black women that make it sound as if all black women are offended, hurt and resentful of Tiger Woods’ choice to date, and fool around with, solely white women.

I should have indicated that media which articulates or reports anger towards Tiger Woods’ dating patterns is not representative of all black folks. But more than this, the media trend is to hype black anger, overblowing it to make a story. The AP article chose to drum up scandal, making it look as if all black women are FURIOUS about Tiger. Danielle Belton comments on this, saying

The reality is, Angry Black Woman will always be “sexier” to a journalist than Apathetic Black Woman. Apathetic Black Woman doesn’t care about Tiger or what he does and who he does things with. Apathetic Black Woman is just morbidly curious, watching the car wreck of alleged girlfriends and jump-offs like everyone else. Apathetic Black Woman doesn’t fit the stereotype, so she doesn’t get as much ink as everyone’s favorite black straw woman to bash — ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.

(Sidenote: the article actually quoted Racialicious’ very own Carmen, and it’s worth noting that abridged versions of the article leave Carmen out; perhaps her comments weren’t divisive enough.)

Some people of colour have no problem with interracial relationships between POCs and white folks. Some people of colour (not just black folks) do, because POC/white IRs seem to replicate a pattern where whiteness is valued over POCness. When the person of colour in question is a successful person, this rejection of POCness and blackness is even more painful. Is it wrong for POCs to project their own anger about how they are denigrated and undervalued over and over, onto the private relationship of two random people? Yes. But I think it is worth noting that such anger, while misplaced, is genuine – and I would argue justifiable.

But when this anger is handled by the hammy paws of the media, it gets translated into: women of colour (or black women) are jealous-ass bitches who can’t hold their men down – and even POCs who didn’t have that anger in the first place get lumped into this.

Tiger Woods is the best and worst celebrity illustration of mixed raceness.

Tiger is a great celebrity illustration of mixed raceness, because he really seems to identify with mixedness. He’s staunchly mixed race, insisting on Cablinasianess – a hybrid space. This attachment to the often uncomfortable limbo of mixed raceness is unusual and fascinating. And it’s arguably brave, consider how folks have called him a race traitor for simply trying to express his identity.

But this is not to say that Tiger hasn’t actively distanced himself from blackness. Calling himself Cablinasian is an invocation of his heritage, not a distancing move. But making jokes about blackness? That IS distancing. In “100% Cablinasian,” I did not give enough credence to the actual jerk moves Tiger has madeFrom a 1997 GQ article published when Woods was 21, via Adrienne:

This is one of the jokes that Tiger told:

He puts the tips of his expensive shoes together, and he rubs them up and down against each other. “What’s this?” he asks the women, who do not know the answer.

“It’s a black guy taking off his condom,” Tiger explains.

And those jokes that I opened with, which were both made by white sportscasters? Woods brushed off these comments instead of confronting them. Perhaps he didn’t speak up – apart from not wanting to upset his sponsorships – because Woods does not totally or solely identify with blackness. Is that an excuse? Hell no. Is this brushing off a poor move on Tiger’s part, no matter what? Hell yes. Has Tiger let the black community down time and again? Most definitely. Disturbingly, he appears to use his mixed race identity as an excuse to not challenge anti-black racism.

Woods doesn’t just let down black folks. He also lets down mixed race folks, who are often viewed with suspicion because light-skinned mixed race folks can pass. Are they going to take up their ticket into whiteness, or are they going to advocate for anti-racism? Again, this is unfair pressure to put on a mixed race person, but 1) in some cases mixed race people do trade on their ethnicity to get ahead 2) this pressure or anxiety comes from something very real: the oppression and rejection of people of colour, and particularly of dark skin.

When one of the world’s most famous mixed race people denigrates one of his racial groups – specifically blackness – to a white audience, he fulfills every negative stereotype there is about mixed race people.

Thanks a lot Tiger.

But Tiger Woods is a mixed race person of colour – and this matters.

When I wrote “100% Cablinasian,” I thought that people did not know or understand that Woods was Asian. Yet dozens of angry people on my post indicated that they do in fact know that Woods is Asian, thankyouverymuch.

I realise now that it’s not that folks don’t know Woods is mixed and Asian. Rather, it’s that folks don’t care that Woods is mixed and Asian.

I remember Carmen telling the story that when she first moved to the US, she would explain her ethnic background to people who asked. They would listen, and then say, ok, so you’re basically Asian?

I feel like Tiger gets very similar treatment. He explains that his father is Black and his mother is Asian, and then people say, ok, so you’re basically Black?

I should make it clear at this point, that when I say “folks” or refer to responses Woods get, “folks” is not code for Black People. It is not Black People who respond to Tiger this way. It is racist culture – across the board – that responds to Tiger this way.

What both these responses indicate is that it doesn’t matter that Carmen’s dad is Belgian or that Tiger’s mother is Thai, at the end of the day they are basically just one thing.

While I made a lot of mistakes in “100% Cablinasian,” I said some things that I still stand by. I said that while most Americans, including African Americans are mixed, Woods is mixed in a different way. Commenters stated that I was dismissing what it meant for African Americans to have many different ethnicities within their family tree. I was stating rather that African Americans are mixed, Tiger is mixed – but they are not mixed in the same way.

It’s not that Tiger is more “Authentically Mixed Race” than African Americans with two African American parents, it’s just that he’s mixed in a different way. Saying that he’s mixed in the same way African Americans are mixed suggests that the impact of being raised in two distinct cultures is negligible.

Within our culture, Tiger is perceived to be black. The perception goes: sure, he came to blackness from a different route, but at the end of the day, he’s black.

The fact that he’s perceived to be black is incredibly typical of the way mixed race people are treated. Mixed race people are alternatingly made to choose between their ethnic heritages, expected to live up to racial scripts they don’t identify with, or written off as one thing or another (or another), without respect for their own understanding of what it means to be them.

In my original post, I said “Tiger doesn’t look like a black man, he looks Asian.” As a result, some commenters thought that I wanted Woods to be perceived as Asian instead of black, and again I can see why people got that out of my post. I should’ve thought through more carefully both what I was trying to say and how I said it.

What I should’ve said is that Woods looks like a black man, and he also has the face of an Southeast Asian. In other words, unlike other mixed race people – like Obama or Jennifer Tilly – Woods looks particularly mixed, or particularly Blasian. Yet when people look at him, they just see a black guy.

Let mixed race people self-identify, please.

This is an obvious thought, but I am going to articulate it just so that readers are clear on what I mean. It is a problem that Woods’ is perceived as black, NOT because there is something wrong with being black! It is a problem because by his own statements, he doesn’t identify solely with blackness.

Last year I criticised a piece of English journalism that argued we should refer to Obama as a mixed race president rather than a black president. I disagreed with this article, because Obama identifies as black. So we should refer to him as black.

In essence, my issue is not that all mixed race people should be seen as mixed race. It is that mixed race people should have the right to self-identify. So, if a mixed race person of black parentage wants to be seen as black, we should call ‘em that. If a mixed race person of black heritage wants to be seen as Cablinasian, they should be seen as that. If a mixed race person of white parentage wants to be seen as white, we should call them that. To quote myself:

In my experience, a mixed race* person’s racial identity is based on:
a) the racial identity they identify with most, based on their complicated life experience,
but moreover on:
b) how they are seen by the society around them, based on their physical appearance.

In a CNN video that Carmen posted a few weeks back, Obama discusses how he is read as black, and other mixed race commenters discuss how, due to the colour of their skin, identifying as anything other than a mixed person of colour is not an option. In America Barack Obama is a black man…

Consider the flip of this: I have friends who are mixed (black/white, Japanese/white…) who are read as white, and so tend to identify as white. To call this identification internalised racism – or anything other than a response to their lived experience – is to devalue and insult what they have learned to be true.

The process of coming to a racial identity is an intensely personal (if not angst-filled) process…if nothing else, it’s freakin’ rude – NOT progressive – to make helpful hints as to how others should identify.

Tiger Woods’ philandering through a mixed race lens.

Celebrity behaviour is fascinating; despite the fact that most of us haven’t the foggiest idea about the internal life of any given celebrity, we talk and theorise about their actions because they appear to reflect our own. Claims that this should be a “private family matter” aside, one reason why Tiger’s transgressions are being poked and prodded is because of all the possible patterns and meanings we can read into his meltdown, along the lines of race, gender, success and the American Dream. In the whiteness of Tiger’s women on the side, some read a bid to escape blackness. But I read a bid to escape mixedness.

If you take a look at at the sorry sexts Woods sent Grubbs, it seems like he just can’t stop talking about race, and in particular how much Grubbs’ apparent assumptions about race have to do with her interest in sexing him. Both the GQ article quoted above, and the sexts indicate an extreme level of discomfort with his own ethnic heritage, especially when he is in the company of white women.

While some people view Tiger’s fetish for whiteness and see black internalised racism, as a mixed race person I recognise a pattern of anguish typical to mixed race people in a racist culture: a hyper-consciousness of how others perceive your looks and appearance; imposter paranoia – the constant anxiety that others’ affection for you is based on racial qualities you don’t actually possess; and an unshakeable feeling that you are never enough of anything.

From this point of view, Tiger doesn’t just hate blackness. He hates mixedness. Or probably more than anything, he hates Tigerness.

When Woods claims Cablinasian heritage, it’s not an empty or meaningless claim. He’s not just vying for attention, or being petty or trying to distance himself from blackness. Because being mixed does mean something; being mixed does matter. Mixed raceness is not some variation on other races, some offshoot. Just as blackness, Chineseness, Mexicanness…is not some offshoot of whiteness. Mixed raceness is its own distinct thing, with its own distinct set of experiences, difficulties and joys. And mixed race people, no matter who they are or what they’ve done, have the right to express that distinction. That’s ultimately what I wanted to say the last time I sat down to write this.

If we want to draw huge, potentially inadvisable conclusions from the Tiger Woods mess, we should base those conclusions on how he is a Cablinasian man, as well as a black man. Any other conclusions will be inaccurate, will propagate racist stereotypes about black folks, and will propagate the racist notion that races/cultures of colour all look, feel and exist the same.

Latoya’s Note: Some of the comments we have received are already starting to piss me off. Thea wanted to address what happened in her last post – this is her space to do so. Please remain on topic (no need to delve into what is happening with Woods, that’s covered all over the place). And snarky ass comments about “fake apologies” will not be approved. Thea’s post ended up bringing out hurt across two communities – African American readers who felt unjustly maligned in her post, and mixed race readers who once again felt that their identities were erased, since the ensuing discussion was not about the complexities of the mixed race experience at all. She chose to clarify in a larger post. And that’s what’s here. Changes to the comments moderation policy are also afoot. – LDP

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

A Racialized Rant « With a Twist of Dynamite on 22 Dec 2009 at 2:35 pm

[...] My good friend Sarah shared this link with me that I think is worth posting again. It’s an article on the current Tiger Woods situation, with a focus on the racial aspects of its cultural interpretation and [...]
Tiger Woods, Blackness and Blame (Andymatic.com) on 27 Dec 2009 at 11:59 pm

[...] via Racialicious [...]
Asian Pop’s 2009 Year in Review « reappropriate on 31 Dec 2009 at 2:31 pm

[...] how about Tiger, golf’s King Cablinasian? By proving he too has tail-chasing persuasions He traded his family [...]

Comments

Lola wrote:

I appreciate this, you cleared up all of the problems with the previous post which appeared to throw black women under a bus.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 12:34 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

Great clarifications.

Tiger Woods has the right to self-identity, and that right is separate from whether or not he acts like a dick, or whether he not he hates black people. Mixed-race people who are judged pure of heart should not be the only ones granted a special right to self-identify.

I think the “Apathetic Black Woman” piece gives a great quote that indirectly stresses the point that attacking the mixed-race right to self-identification is not something that just black people do. EVERY KIND OF PERSON DOES IT. Even other mixed-race people are often guilty of it!!! There’s a (racist) media tendency to single out black people as being the only ones who are rigid racial purists, and that’s wrong.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

*clapping* Thank you!!! I agree, you cleared up all the problems. I refuse to believe that advocating/focusing on issues that mixed race people face has to come with a side of stereotyping black people.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:10 pm ¶
kenda wrote:

Thanks for clarifying, Thea. The 1st post bothered me a bit, but I feel a lot better after reading this one.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
najah wrote:

i really think you missed the point of some of those comments from black people about the term “cablinasian.” some black people were upset (as were some people of american indian descent I believe) because being black encompasses being mixed with caucasian and possibly native/american indian (i’m a little unsure of the correct term). and also seemed sort of thrown in to dilute his black heritage. in the eyes of most black people, Tiger is black and asian–there was not a debate about whether he was mixed, the debate was about the fact that he chose to highlight a caucasian heritage that goes without saying when someone is “black american.” and also people were offended that he would put caucasian before all of his other heritages–given that the caucasian heritage is more than likely the smallest part of his heritage. why choose to highlight that? obviously he can identify himself as he wants, at the same time i think that people can criticize or be sad about the fact that someone wants to do as much as possible to avoid being seen as (just) black (and asian). personally i’m happy to hear he is now self-identifying as black and asian (blasian). and i am sorry if the cablinasian thing was a misread of his original statement.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

this really struck me so I had to emphasize it:

I recognise a pattern of anguish typical to mixed race people in a racist culture: a hyper-consciousness of how others perceive your looks and appearance; imposter paranoia – the constant anxiety that others’ affection for you is based on racial qualities you don’t actually possess; and an unshakeable feeling that you are never enough of anything…Tiger doesn’t just hate blackness. He hates mixedness. Or probably more than anything, he hates Tigerness…being mixed does mean something; being mixed does matter. Mixed raceness is not some variation on other races, some offshoot. Just as blackness, Chineseness, Mexicanness…is not some offshoot of whiteness. Mixed raceness is its own distinct thing, with its own distinct set of experiences, difficulties and joys. And mixed race people, no matter who they are or what they’ve done, have the right to express that distinction

After reading his texts I see that. A clear example of how things that seem universal (cheating) just can’t “be” without being affected by the context of our experiences.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
Lady Di wrote:

Thea nice post and I thought you eloquently clarified the points you were making keep up the good work.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶
Jay wrote:

tbf I thought the problem many black people had was not Tiger’s self identification as mixed-race but his self-identification and then crude jokes he made about black men in particular. If a white man had made those ‘jokes’ would people have been so understanding?

I agree TW’s cablinasian heritage, is not an empty or meaningless claim- I just wish he could be this ALL the time, that is not use it when it suits the mood… for example his early Nike commercials. Surely you can appreciate the timing of events and then his cablinasian outing on Oprah could have been articulated better. I haven’t failed to notice that some media outlets that were proclaiming TW’s multi-racial credentials are now referring to him solely as black. Ironically it is his right the identify as mixed-race that could end up quashing derogatory stereotypes about what it is ”to be black.”

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:20 pm ¶
Val wrote:

“Woods’ philandering is being interpreted via stereotypes about black men:…”

“But while it was clear before his philandering scandal that Woods was seen as black more than he was seen as Cablinasian, it has become inescapable since.”

You say a few times in your piece that Tiger Woods is perceived as being Black. But I know lots of Black people, including me, who view Tiger as being Asian or mixed and have viewed him that way for a very long time. So who is it you are referring to when you say Tiger is perceived as Black?

And I completely agree with you about the Woods/ Grubbs texts. The MSM sort of ignored those. They were very revealing about what both though/ think about race and sex.

Thanks for writing this.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶
Jay wrote:

* for example his early Nike commercials- which were based on scenes from Spike Lee’s Malcolm X movie. Then it was OK to be black – because ‘black’ was bringing in the dollars*

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
CG wrote:

“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness,–an American, a [Cablinasian]; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

Thank you for the clarification. While I still stand by what I wrote, it was important for me to read your process and intent.

It’s become bittersweet for me, because I’m working through some self-identity issues with my niece who is Black and White. She identifies as Black, at 7, but I didn’t appreciate her denying her White heritage, though (she did it loudly in front of her White parent). I don’t know how to help her; looking at the “sexts” I know I really want to, I don’t want her to have that level of conflict. I mean, life is what it is, but I’d like her to know she has a safe haven as she works through her own identities.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
Lurker wrote:

Wonderfully written piece, Thea. You’ve touched on some truths that will certainly be food for thought throughout Tiger’s media train wreck, and I hope Racialicious continues to delve into discussions of mixed-race identities.

As an aside, I’m actually finding myself appreciating Tiger Woods in ways I never thought I would have before. He seems more human to me now (yes, maybe because of his philandering and otherwise awkwardness), ya know, instead of some mega-rich untouchable superstar.

“quiet and secretively we will always be together”. LOL, Tiger, who says stuff like that? What a weird dude.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶
J.A. wrote:

“From this point of view, Tiger doesn’t just hate blackness. He hates mixedness. Or probably more than anything, he hates Tigerness.” — THIS, no Ma’am.

I agree that he probably hates his Tigerness. He was given an image before he was able to live and create one for himself. But I don’t think he has issues with his “mixedness” so much as he has issues with the fact that he is mixed with black.
I ask you, were are all his disgusting stereotypical jokes about Asians?
Bueller, Bueller, anyone….?

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:

“Tiger is black but he’s also Cablinasian; solely applying the framework of black masculinity onto him to explain his behaviour is going to force certain scripts on him that potentially don’t apply”

I don’t think that Tiger’s rejection of black women as potential dating partners would be “more okay” if he weren’t black at all. It’s still a slap in the face. “I don’t date black women” is a racist policy regardless of whether the perp is black white or asian.

It just is more hurtful when the perp is a person of color, because they don’t have the luxury of “privileged ignorance” to fall back on.

Unlike folks who suffer from cultural or racial isolation, Tiger has familial exposure to both these communities.

He can’t say he never was a member of the black community, (because we know he has black family members), or that he was never around enough asian people to consider dating asian women a possibility.

That is why his dating pattern is especially offensive to me as a woman of color.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶
Dana wrote:

This comment is now an example – LDP

[Self-identification for mixed race African Americans is an absolute fantasy.

If Barack Obama had pronounced that he identifies as a white man, would he have been able to run for president? Would anyone have taken him seriously?

I am sorry, but people who are mixed with black genes (dominant black genes) do not have this luxury and it's ridiculous to even entertain the thought.

I am offended by Tiger Woods and mixed race people like him ( who do not identify as black and proud to be black) is that they act as though my black skin is something that is less than desirable. It's not about denying the otherness of their racial identity, it's about looking at your black (or brown or high yellow) skin and rejecting it.

I look at people like Tiger Woods (and Henry Louis Gates Jr. whose series African American Lives made me physically ill after more than an hour of him preening over the white ancestors) and I see self-hating blacks. We, as a people, have a long way to go and loving ourselves is the first step.

It's a shame that Tiger Woods and his ilk remain in denial. I do feel sorry for Tiger, he has got to be reeling from the treatment he's been receiving in the media and all I have to say about it is that he's finally being forced to confront the fact that he is and will always be perceived as a black man. He has certainly not been on the receiving end of the protection that is afforded to whites when one of their own is attacked.
]
Mod Note – This is the perfect example of a comment that will not be permitted on site, and anyone spewing this kind of shit will be banned. (Dana, you’re banned.) Mixed race identity isn’t about a rejection narrative, and those who would deny others the right to self-identify can keep fucking stepping. If you agree with this comment, this is not the blog for you. – LDP

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm ¶
Lainad wrote:

Thank you Thea for this post. I was one of those people who originally thought WTF?

I also appreciate your comments on ‘mixed raceness’ and your views on Tiger’s issues surrounding it. It was something I had certianly not thought about, but it makes sense.

I am also one of those people who totally discredited Tiger when he was on Oprah years ago and honestly thought he was full of shit with the ‘Canablasian’ reference. I was pissed because to me it seemed like he did not come up with that phrase to aptly describe is multi -heritaged background, but to pointedly remove himself from being percieved as black. I have always held that view, and for that, have nothing for contempt for him.

It was important back then for me a trans-racial adoptee to not only embrace my blackness in a community where I was literally the only black face around. I had to be proud of who I was when I was told that I was lower than dirt. I am proud that I never wished to be anyone else other than myself. but man, it was a lot of work not succumbing to self-hatred.

So I guess, now I can understand a bit of what it must be like to be him, but he has choices and he has consistently made bad ones. I also think that when someone has to delve so deep into their parents lineage in order to describe who they are, there is a red flag. He could have said ‘bi-racial’ or “My dad is black, and my mom is Thai,’ but i suspect that he felt that it wasn’t enough – not good enough. the more exotic the better.

I am mixed race to a point- I’ve got West Indian, African / Jamaican and white in me, but I am black – I’m politically black and you know what? No one is going to pause for a second and consider your multi-ethnic heritage before they call you a nigger. After all he has been through in the sports industry, he should realize that.

I’m proud of the history of my people – whom even though there are no direct lineages, I consider my people. I think that back in the day perhaps people were disappointed in Tiger not because of his multi-racial heritage and him using it to remove himself from his father’s side of the family, but that he was not politically black – and did not bother to challenge the racist vitorol that was directed his way. I would love to find out what his fathers family thinks about him.

Also, I think that the fact that Tiger is richer than God we forget that he is a human being and has insecurities like the rest of us poor slobs.

Even though people have laughed in my face, I still believe that POC’s in the media have an obligation not to be douchebags and throw their own people under the bus because they feel that they are somehow above the rest of us that is simply not realistic and perhaps this bruhaha with Tiger is his commupance for such behaviour ( and cheating on his wife, too).

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 4:10 pm ¶
Adrienne wrote:

Thea, I appreciate your clarification post. I have no disagreement that mixed race people have the right to self-identify.

I will always remember the Tiger who wasn’t allowed on certain golf courses because of his Black ancestry and because they had years old racist policies that kept Black people out of golf.

I will remember his t.v commericals that evoked the Malcolm X movie.

I will remember the way his face lit up when he played a good game.

I will remember his father and the way they interacted and how his father was there for him when he dealt with racist press, and even death threats made towards him for attempting to play certain golf tournaments.

I will remember his interview on Oprah, and reading about the the school he founded in southern California for children.

Thea, I understand your posts, all of it. I feel sorry for Tiger….and a part of me is just can’t see how any woman of any race could hope to have a honest and meaningful relationship with him with the self-hatred issues he has that you addressed.

Even if he had a Black wife, and even if he was cheating with strictly Black women offense still would happen because of the offensiveness of his actions–cheating.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
IronOxideCorset wrote:

@cocolamala. I wouldn’t call what he did with those women “dating”. I am a woman of color and not offended. Would you have really felt better had he seen black call girls and strippers? What if he had taken sex tourism trips to Thailand, would you have felt better about what he did?

His infidelity has been placed in the framework of the stereotype of the hypersexualized black male. There is a huge fetish in the dominant culture over black male sexuality. Most interracial porn involving black men and white women is watched by white men. Even though countless numbers of white male politicians on all sides of the political spectrum have been found cheating, and even though cheating is an extremely common phenomena that occurs between married people, the Tiger phenomena has been hyped beyond all explanations.

As far as Tiger Woods goes, his entire perception is based upon simply how most Americans feel that he stereotypically looks like. If he had looked more like Kimora Lee Simons, who is also of black and Asian ancestry, people would probably be more inclined to view him as Asian. Even if he had looked more Asian his black side would probably be blamed for his sexual indiscretions.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:

@IronOxideCorset

okay, if you wouldn’t call it dating, then it can be called “seeing women of color as attractive or potential sexual partners”

i am questioning whether no one took time to explain to him that women of color are not encompassed by the prevailing beauty standard, and that to find women of color attractive, you have to step outside of what is “taught” by mainstream media — his taste in women just seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to engaging with movies/television/magazines.

yuck!

(and its limiting to be unable to find people who share your family member’s ethnicity attractive)

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:

@IronOxideCorset

also, you’re focused on the issue of infidelity, where i am more interested in his “no women of color policy”

these two are not necessarily opposed issues

i think that he can be perceived as the “hypersexual black male, with a lust for white women…” however inaccurate, or mythical that fantasy may be.

and he can be understood to be resistant to dating women of color as evidenced by his choice of women. he could have been totally faithful, or celibate, and still not be attracted to women of color overall — and that would still be problematic.

its just as bad for the media to promote the idea he’s an hypersexual black man, as it is for Tiger rule out all women of color because they’re not white. both are racisms.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 5:03 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:

@ Adrienne,
To be fair, white folks didn’t keep blacks out of golf. We were always allowed to caddy or work in the kitchen at the clubhouse.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶
Umm....wut wrote:

I really like this post a lot. The joke from Tiger made me think though about the phallic fixation of black masculinity in mainstream culture (super endowed) and it’s opposite fixation in Asian masculinity (under endowed and sexless). With that joke it seems like tiger is trying to embrace one of the “favorable” traits of his black maleness while distancing himself from blackness (taking the body and leaving the culture/mind/spirit). Perhaps this is all meaningless speculation, but his ethnic preoccupation in his texts seems like a way of trying to tie two disparate stereotypes of masculinity together in creating an empowered sexual space for himself. It’s got to be madenning to try to find yourself when you live in a society that, at best, sees you as an amalgalm of conflicting stereotypes. I’ll bet tiger has had to deal with a lot of people questioning his racial identity (and in turn his masculinity) by wondering if he’s “black below the waist and Asian in the face.”

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶
DigitalCoyote wrote:

@Thea:

I refrained from commenting on your original post because I felt like Lola did and that the “blame” for not letting him identify himself was less than fairly apportioned.

I don’t know if it was all foisted upon him because no one would listen to his individual experience as a multiethnic person or if he saw an opportunity to make more money by avoiding being outspoken on racism or many other issues. The cynic in me says it’s more of the latter than the former because of how much his public image was worth before this story broke. If it is the former, this s wrong and might prompt more people to be outspoken about where they come from so that the country can move away from this binary of identification for the sake of everyone.

I appreciate the time you took to come back to this subject. Your clarification makes much more sense.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 5:52 pm ¶
SAL wrote:

I wonder if banning Dana is the thing to do. I’m mixed race and have experienced a tremendous amount of drama (much of it scary and damaging) from both blacks and whites. And yet, I’m still interested in what people who don’t have my experience or agree with me have to say (unless they’re verbally or physically attacking me, of course). And, I’m sorry, but if you live outside any major metropolitan area and look even a tad African, you’re considered black. Dana does have a valid point. Frankly, I”m fine with that because I’m not ashamed of my African ancestry. I personally feel a real sense of camaraderie with brown and black people and am proud to be tan/brown. It doesn’t make me love my white relatives any less. It was only after I became completely comfortable with my African ancestry that I really began to feel OK about myself in my family (I grew up with my white mother and stepfather and white half-siblings in rural areas and it was pretty traumatic for me, especially since my caregivers were of the “race doesn’t matter” school, even as I was being bullied and ostracized). I grew up with mixed-race people (non of whom had relationships with their black fathers) who were very, very uncomfortable with their black ancestry and spent loads of time parsing out their racial identities. If we were truly “beyond race,” it really wouldn’t matter how we self-identified, would it? Unfortunately, that is still not the case. And I do wish you’d reconsider banning Dana (I guess you wanted to relay the message to other potentially out-of-line readers that deviating from Racialicious’s party line will not be tolerated). Perhaps it’s the hippie in me, but the way you “handled” her was extremely uncool. Perhaps you’ll ban me for voicing my opinion. SAL

Mod Note - SAL, you run your blog your way, we’ll run ours our way. I don’t know how much more clear you can be on a post where the OP explicitly spells out that mixedness is not a derivative of blackness, and still gets comments like Dana’s. And while you may personally be ok with it, the emails and comments Carmen, Thea, and I have all received from other mixed race readers says otherwise. If you can’t play by our rules, find another blog. – LDP

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 6:50 pm ¶
Adrienne wrote:

You said it right, Phil Deeze.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 6:53 pm ¶
eh wrote:

The only place that I’ve seen Tiger’s “blackness” really touched on, or stereotyped (when it comes to his affairs) is actually on T.V. The comments on most boards (even TMZ which I usually a sewer) is surprisingly race neutral. I think this is another example of how out of step the MSM is with many Americans. Especially right now I think people see Tiger as a privllaged American was wasting his money on average (at best) women of ill repute. I also find it interesting that sometimes blog have stories about how Asian women are fetishist, but I’ve never seen a story about how White woman become a fetish to some men. It is almost like it is okay. I think all woman need to be weary of men who may only seek a relationship (even a marriage) just because they have a fetish. Again, I want to reiterate how much I sympathize w/ Elin, and I wish her the best of luck.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 6:57 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

Thea I think you did a good job clearing up your article! I think the complaints are about the fact although Woods wants to distance himself from blackness it doesn’t matter in the USA. In America, Woods is viewed as a black man and he is a victim of scientific racism that is constructed about black male sexuality.

It is hard sometimes as a writer to accept criticism but I think you did a good job following up! I agree strongly that although Woods may not view himself as “black” he is interpreted and viewed as a “black man”. I think W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about this issue called “Double Consciousness” in his book “The Souls Of Black Folk”. Du Bois said that blacks are aware that white people view blacks in a different way than blacks view ourselves. Du Bois said sometimes blacks interpret the racism and this destroys the self esteem of some blacks.
I think Woods is a victim of double consciousness.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 8:07 pm ¶
abbkr wrote:

While some people view Tiger’s fetish for whiteness and see black internalised racism, as a mixed race person I recognise a pattern of anguish typical to mixed race people in a racist culture: a hyper-consciousness of how others perceive your looks and appearance; imposter paranoia – the constant anxiety that others’ affection for you is based on racial qualities you don’t actually possess; and an unshakeable feeling that you are never enough of anything.

From this point of view, Tiger doesn’t just hate blackness. He hates mixedness. Or probably more than anything, he hates Tigerness.

^

or maybe he just likes white women because they continue to be held as the pinnacle of beauty in our society.

or maybe he’s mostly socialized with white people (men and women) throughout his life and it is most natural/ comfortable for him to date such women.

The women men sleep sometimes just reflects their own sexual preference and is only tangentially a reflection of how they feel about themselves personally.

It’s quite a leap to say that he hates “Tigerness” because he’s got a thing for white women. It’s very plausible that white women, the white community has been his home for quite sometime. He wouldn’t be the only person of color for which that is true.

But cheating on your wife with a bunch of white women is certainly not enough to go on in attempting to deconstruct the man’s psyche

—Also, I fail to see why Dana’s comment was banned. She may hold an unpopular view by this blog’s standards- one that i too disagree with, parts of it anyways- but it didn’t seem hateful to me, rather an opportunity for discussion. Isn’t that what the comment section here is about?

Mod Note – No, it’s not. Commenting is not a right, and just as we draw lines around productive conversations about race, we also occasionally do so around questions of identity. And just like we tag and ban people for a litany of other things, challenging mixed race identity just got bumped up to zero tolerance. Some of you may think it’s strange to be this strict or it is worthwhile to have these discussions – but the bottom line is my mixed race readers (and some of my mixed race writers) no longer feel comfortable with the community here. So, we’re going to fix that, even if I have to close comments and extend personal invitations to the 200 or so commenters who show respect for how others identify. Some of you may have endless patience to debate with everyone who wants to argue – I invite you to start up your own site and you can do exactly that. But when I get emails from a long time commenter, Carmen, and Thea in the same way, all upset about how mixed race people are treated, action will be taken. – LDP

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 8:15 pm ¶
Chelsea wrote:

I very much appreciate this post. You help clarify for me some of the discomforts and complications surrounding the whole situation that I had not been able to articulate for myself. Well done.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

One more time, with feeling –

1. Banning is not up for discussion or group debate, and I’ve answered as many questions as I am going to.

2. If you do not respect mixed race identity, you will be banned. If you don’t like how this blog implements its moderation policy, you are free to leave.

3. Fair criticism is one thing, and we do allow that through. Specifically violating our comments policy and the spirit of this space is another. And it is not happening. The comments section is not a democracy and neither is the blog.

4. Final reminder – stay on topic here. No segues into black dating, we’ve had two threads on that already.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 8:36 pm ¶
KJ wrote:

I think this blog is courageous for taking on this incredibly difficult, multifaceted, charged subject. And it does so thoroughly and eloquently.

I, for one, learn a lot every time I tune in – so thank you for that.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶
sweeterjuice wrote:

Well, FWIW, I pretty much understood you the first time, Thea, and while I disagree with much of what you wrote, I didn’t have a _problem_ as such with it.

I disagree that Woods has actively distanced himself from blackness. The black-guy-taking-off-his-condom joke has come to me from so many proud black men that it baffles me you put Woods to the fire for telling it. He was 21, for God’s sake, and people “blacker” than him have told that joke for ages. Same with “ghetto”–I hear Us Folks use the term to dis each other more than anyone else.

I don’t doubt that some of the readers here at Racialicious would have used their celebrity differently, had they been in Woods’s shoes. But I really feel that in the end, Wood hasn’t been anymore of a disappointment to blacks or other races than Michael Jordan has been ( I gave up on Jordan when his response to Nike’s child labor factories was “I’m just a paid spokesman”). There are lesser-profile sports celebrities who have done a lot more for their ethnic communities than either Jordan or Woods.

I disagree that Wood’s ethnic mix is always perceived as black. While I think there’s a strong argument to be made that most people with power in the circles Woods runs in reflexively react to him as a black man (for lack of any additional info) , his appearance, as you say, also reads as Asian. There’s bound to people who react to him as an Asian man before they react to him as a black man (my money’s on, well, most of Asia).

I disagree that Woods sleeping with white women had much–if anything–to do with escaping his race, mixed or not. I believe it simply to be a matter of the social circles he runs in. Woods has been playing golf since he was literally a child, and let’s face it–golf has historically been a rich white man’s game in the US. That means that from a very young age, Woods would have been surrounded by peers that were white, and likely wealthy. That also means that–like it or not–the women most likely to be around at any given time were white, and likely had the money and time to make themselves beautiful.

Woods could have, I suppose, actively sought out black or mixed race peers also interested in golf, but be honest–how likely would he have been to find any? Would it have been unreasonable for Woods to assume that most black men or women of his age would be interested in other sports? (Hint–blacks like myself who like golf have had to move heaven and earth to do so in my part of the country. Black basketball or football fans are a dime a dozen, but black golf fans are rarer than hen’s teeth.)

In the end, Woods has been like a black-eyed pea in a plate of grits for the overwhelming majority of his career. Given his dedication to the sport and the resulting demands on his time, I suspect it’s all as simple as Woods over the years developing an interest in the women that were around. Apply Occam’s Razor to this situation, and what you get is a major celebrity with the resources and desire to cheat on his wife with whatever beautiful women are around him. The issue of race simply means more people have an interest in the scandal.

Bottom-line: From where I sit, there are lots of people out there–including you, Thea, and Sister Toldja, and the fella who wrote that AP article–who are bringing their own personal issues with race to the scandal and projecting them on Tiger Woods. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge that’s what you’re doing.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶
pilot wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Thea. I had a few problems about in the first post on how you said Tiger *looked* Asian in the first post, mainly because I’m really tired of people telling me and other mixed-race folks how we don’t look or do look like whatever our heritage is.

CG, where is that quote from?

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:45 pm ¶
Moth wrote:

@Thea – I think it’s incredibly brave of you to post this new piece. That really says a lot about you. However, I still have a few concerns. If I understand correctly you say that the anti-black racism Tiger faces is a problem because a) it’s wrong and b) Tiger is not just black. With all due respect, I’m not sure why b is an issue. To me, suggesting that consdering, in this case demeaning, Tiger as black “effaces” his “mixedness” — but doesn’t that reading of the situation suggest that “mixedness” effaces blackness? Would the racism be more acceptable if it addressed all parts of Tiger’s heritage? Reason b is especially baffling given that you later say, “Calling himself Cablinasian is an invocation of his heritage, not a distancing move.” As far as the claim that “Woods is mixed in a different way. ” I would say “yes” but because every mixed individual is mixed in a different way whether they fall into the category “most African Americans” or people who are typically thought of as biracial, and it seems a bit like silencing for you to posit what the experienes of “most African Americans” and their mixedness entails. I’m also kind of leary of claims that some mixed people look “particularly mixed while others don’t.” What does mixed look like? And do all people see their mixedness in terms of distinction — for example, there are many in the Creole community, mixed by definition, who simply sees their Creolite as an offshoot of blackness. I’m torn writing this comment because (beyond the fact that it’s long-winded) I think you eloquently, passionately, and vulnerably describe what being mixed is like For You. I kind of wince, however, when it seems like in some places you feel your view is the definitive one on mixedness.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:53 pm ¶
n wrote:

I have no feelings for Tiger, not a fan or a hater. My best friend is mad at him for denying his black side, but I think refusing a black identity and denying his heritage are 2 separate issues.

I do not identify myself at all racially. No denial at all of my background, zero shame. But years and years of being told I wasnt what I said I was made me decide that all this was for the birds. I am a mutt.

So I dont see Tiger’s self identification as a problem, he’s being who he is. And who he is is a mutt too.

As far as the white women? Well, he grew up playing golf. I can imagine him being socialized in such a way that makes it easier to be around white women.

And there is this. I have, and I know some other mixed race/culture people have found it much easier to just GET OUT of it and relate to people. If you’re Irish and Italian, with one set of friends and family your Italianness is being pointed out, with the other set of friends and family your Irishness is being mentioned. If you arent with EITHER, then you arent expected to fit in or mesh so you can be accepted as 100% of whatever sort of foreign person you are as opposed to being seen as a flawed member of the group.

It may hurt less to be seen as different by a white woman or a Swede than it is by an Asian woman or a Black woman. They are supposed to see you as foreign and other, that makes sense. Its when your own see you that way that it REALLY hurts.

So I dont know, and thats reason enough for me to reserve judgement.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:07 pm ¶
April wrote:

I would just like to thank Thea for following up on her original post (which I did find to be offensive). This clarifies a lot of things. I agree that people of mixed race should be able to identify as they choose. It does seem, however, that Tiger Woods is especially uncomfortable with the “bl” in “Cablinasian”–although I’d stress that this isn’t because of who he’s dated or bedded, but because of his other actions, many of which Thea cited in her post.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:35 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:

Guys/Ladies,
I wonder if Tiger, back when his media persona/image was being crafted for him (by his father, by IMG, by Nike, etc.) did he truly realize the ramifications down the road if he did go so far off the path of the expectations?
Could any person, regardless of racial make-up or self-identification, have lived up to that image?

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:36 pm ¶
mieko wrote:

@ Latoya-

I think I’ll stay out of this thread, but just wanted to poke my head in and say…thanks. For the mod policy and the identity support. I really appreciate it. (You don’t have to put this up if you don’t want to, It probably doesn’t fit guidelines. I just wanted to tell you)

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:25 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

After having read that comment several times, in the scope of this post, and this site, I have to agree that Dana was out of line. Perhaps if she had worded it differently- because I sadly cannot deny that too many people assume that to be mixed is to either be black and something or white and something, and to be black and something is especially criminalizing, stereotyping, and dehumanizing(in their eyes)- we might have a different story, but she didn’t, and that’s for her to work out, not the rest of us. I think that we take for granted that we have a site that’s willing to tackly some intensely complex issues, and so we expect the dirty work- and the cleanup- to be done for us.

Allll that said:

Thea, thanks for clarifying. As someone who was deeply bothered by that OP, after reading this I think I will be okay walking this ground with you again. You made really good points; my one thing I want to touch on is this:

”I recognise a pattern of anguish typical to mixed race people in a racist culture: a hyper-consciousness of how others perceive your looks and appearance; imposter paranoia – the constant anxiety that others’ affection for you is based on racial qualities you don’t actually possess; and an unshakeable feeling that you are never enough of anything…”

I agree and yet I disagree. Though this is certainly valid and extremely applicable to mixed-race people, I’d venture to say that this goes for non-mixed people too, particularly those of us who are perceived as not quite being their race- that is, possessing qualities that don’t align with the (often stereotypical, racist) boundaries and expectations of their respective race- and further that perception by (at any point) dating outside of their race. Being an individual who ultimately is of a character not easily classified( and therefore harder to stereotype), is extremely taxing; that feeling of being found out no matter what you and where you go is felt by many, many people.

Finally, in reading those texts, it kind of saddens me a bit… Tiger actually seems like a person who could be cool to get to know (I’m sorry, the joke about being Bone Thugs was hilarious to me). I appreciate being able to know that his Black heritage was something he actually thought about often, rather than completely pretended didn’t exist, as many, himself included, made it seem.

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:40 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

Also, @CG: Perfect choice of quote, though it could definitely stand to be updated (brb updating).

Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:58 pm ¶
BS wrote:

After reading this article, I would most likely qualify as the Apathetic Black Woman. I am not surprised that many would think of Tiger’s choice to be that of the stereotypical insatiable Black man as it pertains to sex and monogomy. However, a dog is a dog, regardless of it’s breed.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:26 am ¶
Michelle wrote:

I wanted to echo the fact that it is very, very progressive to continue to refine one’s craft, especially in the face of criticism. So, here’s to you Thea! It is really in the spirit of Racialicious to constantly hone in on conversations of race and how we can continue to be extremely productive in our discussions. So, here’s to you Racialicious!

That said, I have two other comments.

1. I would like to echo najah’s post. The thing is, if by your logic, mixed race people should be able to self identify, then Tiger’s father should be allowed to self identify. He identified as Black. So how can Tiger then claim to have a non-Black father? Or a non-Asian mother? In your post you say that his mother is Asian, then go on to talk about somewhere on her family tree she has a Dutch ancestor. By your own logic, she is Asian. Basically, you are saying that while Tiger’s parents are mixed, they are not mixed in the same way that Tiger actually is mixed. So, when he claims parts of his “identity” that don’t even (again, by your logic) affect his own parents, then how can he claim those more distant parts? It becomes more suspect when viewed from the lens of Whiteness being the preference. Thea, can you see that point? Basically, I completely agreeing with you, in that Tiger being Asian and Black is very different from me having a White great-grandparent. Agreed. But if I have a Black identifying parent (who has some “White” ancestry) and a Cuban/Latino identifying parent (who also has some White ancestry) can we agree that it is strange for me to refer to myself as White, Black and Cuban? That was the only salient point which was raised by numerous posters that you didn’t address.

2. Has to deal with Whiteness as either a race or ethnicity. But I recognize as I type that it is too huge of a problem to unpack, especially in regards to a mixed race identity.

Lastly, you raise some amazing points and I think that we are getting closer everyday to really dismantling racism and the idea that mixed race people like Carmen and Tiger are basically Asian or Black.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 12:32 am ¶
holly wrote:

I dont mean to derail the vein of this post but I couldnt find a general email address to send this comment to. I am writing because I felt compelled to comment on some of the language that is sometimes used on this site. I believe that the word denigrate has roots in racist origins and it is used quite a few times in this post. Also, the term dark or darken was used in a pejorative way in a post about black women a day or so earlier. I just think that if one of the goals of this site is to engage in anti-racist and anti-oppressive discourse that we should be mindful of the racist underpinnings of the language that we use and that we should attempt to avoid perpetuating more racism.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:36 am ¶
Calvin wrote:

I’ll say it again….

Tiger is only black by default. Not only does he not look “Black” (he looks like a Pacific Islander)… he doesn’t connect/relate to the”black community” at all.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:56 am ¶
Martha wrote:

I should probably state that I am not North American. I live in a different culture and therefore only have loose ideas about race and racial issues as they manifest in American culture.

I just wanted to give some of my perspective on the idea of disclosing race, as well as the idea of being categorised by race identification. That’s what I think this is about.

As individuals, we often have the opportunity to research our own heritage, (and no matter how white or black you are – there is diversity there – human migration is no new thing). That is fantastic, and I am so interested in learning about my own genetic heritage in that sense! However, it seems wildly different to being forced to disclose my race or heritage in other to be formally categorised in the modern sense.

The idea of mixed race seems as simple to me as having a family tree. Between me and my friends, we can trace our families back to homesteads in Ireland, Denmark, Turkey, Norway, Albania, Romania, Moldova, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Poland, France, Russia, Algeria, Spain, Nigeria, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. And that’s obviously off the top of my head, from what my friends know or have told me. Some of us have aesthetic features that reflect (or could be taken to reflect) parts of our heritage. Some of us don’t.

If one of my friends is Danish and Irish, they don’t need to explain themselves on a form, ever. Similiarly, neither does my friend who is Turkish and Irish. Or my friend who is French and Algerian. They all have passports reflecting their nationality. And that is what is important is terms of modern travel/migration, be it for fun or permanent relocation.

It seems to me like the necessity of having to publically and formally identify your family background like it was important to your current status just seems counter-intuitive to me.

I worked in America for one summer, and the amount of times I had to identify myself as white really shocked me. It really shocked me. And I can’t reiterate that enough.

I’m not saying there aren’t reasons why formal race disclosure is important in America, (I don’t know what they are, I’m not familiar with the system), but this post really made me pause and consider the reasons why formal race disclosure aren’t required here.

It’s not because we don’t live in a multicultural, or multiracial society.

How much of formal race disclosure actually causes problems and perpetuates racism?

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:21 am ¶
little mixed girl wrote:

Since my post didn’t get through on the previous topic, I’m using a different email in hopes that it was just that the board doesn’t like hotmail accounts…

…With that said, I didn’t find anything wrong with Thea’s original topic.
I didn’t read it as an “attack” on black people or women. Nor did I read it as an attempt to “claim” Tiger for Asians.

It seemed that some posters in the previous thread were quick to jump on her without trying to understand what she was looking to say.

I understand that some black posters felt like they were being made to take the blame for the way that some part-black mixed people feel, but that’s definitely not how I read her article or how I or other part-black mixed people feel.

I do wish that monoracially identified people would understand that those of us that do identify as multiracial do it because that’s what we are.
Saying, “Well, society sees you this way, so, that’s what you are”, is just another way of belittling our experiences.
This is definitely not a black/white issue, either.

As I wrote in the other thread, I can understand that some black people are angry at comments that Tiger made that seem to make black people the butt of a joke. But at the same time, Obama made a comment about being a “mutt” or something to that extent, which I as a multiracial person found extremely offensive, but I doubt that most people would use that as an example of why Obama hates mixed people.

As to Tiger or any other mixed person “distancing” themselves from one of the races that they are mixed with, what should we do?
I acknowledge the races that I am mixed with, but I wasn’t raised in a family that celebrated them, nor was I around a “community”.
Perhaps Tiger was the same, not raised in a “community”, and while he knows what he’s mixed with, all he can do is acknowledge it as a part of what he is.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:52 am ¶
Martha wrote:

I only just finished reading the comments that went before and I definitely don’t want to add to the confusion. I just want to make it clear that

1) I’m not saying that race doesn’t matter

2) I’m definitely not trying to take from the experience of being mixed race in America.

I wrote that comment too quickly and I understand if it takes from the discussion or indeed, derails it. It was just a different perspective from someone who is, I guess, an outsider.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:04 am ¶
diiorama wrote:

I don’t understand why Thea needs to re-clarify in this article when the original one was just to bring light to Tiger’s genetic make-up.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:57 am ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:

I really appreciate your revisiting this post. I think sometimes writing for this blogging medium, many of us assume that our deeper intentions and prior track record on a topic are widely known to all readers. Of course, that’s not always the case. So I think this second post was helpful.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
kenda wrote:

@ little mixed girl & diiorama

I think this quote explains why there needed to be an clarification.

If you were to read “100% Cablinasian” outside of the context of Racialicious and outside of the context of my writing, it propagates stereotypes about black folks. That’s unacceptable, and that’s why I am writing about Tiger Woods again.

I considered Thea’s intent b/c of my familiarity with her other writing, but if the original “100% Cablinasian” post was the first thing I’d ever read on Racialicious, I probably would not have returned to this site again. As a black woman, I’m more than annoyed/tired of the narrative that I have a problem with Tiger’s racial identity or that I’m hurt that he doesn’t partner with black women. I simply don’t care. I’ve heard too many men say that they wouldn’t date/marry black women to expend the energy worrying about what Tiger might think about black people in general, and black women in particular.

I’ve been a long-time Racialicious reader & I like knowing that when I come to this site I don’t have to worry about black folks (or really any racial or ethnic group) being misconstrued as a great monolithic mob that demands full allegiance to exclusion of anything else. I chose not to comment on the first post, but it really disappointed me. That’s why I’m glad Thea cleared things up.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:58 pm ¶
Dee Dee wrote:

The case of Tiger Woods is at once interesting and tiresome for me. There are so many elements contributing to the media’s fascination with Tiger that I dare not try to touch upon all of them.

But let me state, Tiger Woods is of “mixed race” and should definitely be able to self-identify. However, he suffers from what I’ve seen other mixed-race individuals (who are part African American) suffer from; the reality of their phenotypical appearance. What I mean by that is this – that although they definitely have a varied racial background, their immediate physical features lead strangers to glance at them and often times deem them to be black. And in a perfect world they would probably only explain their background to close associates. But in a world that often holds blackness in low esteem, it seems that there is an inherent pressure for them to make it firmly known that blackness is not the totality of their background. I believe at one point Tiger said that he was 25% African American. Since I know that none of us is of pure race, this percentage breakdown of ethnicity seems a bit much to me, but to each his own.

It WAS however, interesting to see how the media drew immediate affinity between Tiger and blacks once his scandal was uncovered. And my response to the powers that be would be that you can’t talk out of both sides of your neck. Tiger was initially touted as a true 21st century athlete who defied the rigid structures of race, who broke the barriers of what has been a very elitist sport and who seemed to move through the world untouched by 20th century limitations. But add in 14 ladies on the side and suddenly he’s cause for distress in the black community. And nothing could be further from the truth. Especially for black women such as myself who aren’t golf fans and never caught “Tiger” fever.

As far as I’m concerned, his sexual activity outside of his marriage is much more common (among all married couples) than any of us want to believe and heightened by his status and monetary worth. I actually laughed at papers that assumed that blacks were upset that all of his mistresses were white. That would be like me being upset that Dennis Rodman doesn’t date black women. It’s been that way for quite a while and simply doesn’t register on my radar at all.

I think a salient point needs to be made with the statement that mixed-race people should be able to self identify. We are ALL mixed race people and so we should ALL be able to self identify. And that is what is part of this world’s sickness to me. We strive for the individuality of certain people and deny the individuality of others. And until this begins to change we will not make progress in the realm that has been labeled as race.

For me Tiger Woods is a perfect reminder that NO human being can be defined solely by their appearance. That each one of us is unique in our cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds. And that it would behoove all of us to take the time to truly get to know others on their own terms without needing to place them into any box.

That is the world I so long to inhabit…

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:20 pm ¶
Westerly wrote:

Sign me up as another reader who was seriously unimpressed, even angered by the original OP, which pretty much echoed MSMs claims about so-called ‘black’ reaction to Tiger… and proved to be just as insightful. It was certainly not something that I’d expect to read on Racialicious and it was a huge miss for me.

I’m not AA, but I am ‘black’ and have never had the slightest interest in Tiger Woods or golf whatsoever though I was fully aware of his mixed heritage; yet, the original post (which called out black and white alike to stop forcing/coercing Woods to identify as solely black without nary a word about what role Asians might play in any of this) made me blink so much that it almost gave me a headache.

That, along with the almost ironic complaint over the prevalence of the black-white racial paradigm – all of which occurred without any historical reflexivity or contextualisation (though Latoya did attempt to intervene) had me shaking my head.

At any rate, the thoughtful responses of posters like Lurker and polloly were frankly a relief to read.

So, I’m not at all ‘mystified’ as to why this retraction/clarification has occurred.

I have no problem with posters reading a different subtext in the OP than the one that some of us saw (and rejected) – but at the same time why is it that one or two posts that are defending the OP feel one step removed from: ‘*I* didn’t have a problem with it – and nor should anyone else!’ Or: ‘You didn’t *really* see what you thought you saw.’ (Read: Some of you are just oversensitive)

And of course: ‘Why does X feel she has to apologise when she did nothing wrong in the first place?’

Hmmm-mmm. Where have I seen this strategy play out before?

One of the problems that I have with many feminist blogs is that when someone prominent in the community screws up and then admits it (or after much argumentation is finally forced to admit it) the apology process is always complicated, hindered and even nullified by persistent defenders who, even after a simple apology is issued, jump on to the comments thread and champion the very thing that offended so many people.

By and large, that is NOT the case here and I’m glad of it. However, I’m still wary of its undertones, however faint…

As for my reaction to this reformulated post? Well, I agree with those posters who point out that Tiger doesn’t seem to have a problem with being multi-racial – not at all. But as another poster pointed out, it wasn’t his Asian or Dutch heritage (i.e. those parts of ‘the mix’) that were singled out for what some saw as amused contempt and disrespect.

But I don’t think that the specifc concerns of the OP or this new post are really able to confront this aspect head-on and see where it leads, since it was never really about Tiger’s problematic relationship or lack of relationship with the AA community or how he might feel about that part of his identity in the first place.

Reading this, I can’t help but feel that an awful lot is left unsaid or swept under the carpet. And that these things will never be voiced unless there are honest, open transparent discussions that specifically deal with bi-racial and multi-ethnic perspectives on race and their various set(s) of problems in terms of race, where multi-bi-racial individuals/communities feel they are positioned in race discourse (as oppsed to where they’d like to be positioned) along with discussions of where they stand in relation to communities of color and vice versa.

In other words a critical framework combined with accounts of individual experience.

Is there such a thing as mono-racial privilege/under-privilege? Is there such a thing as bi-racial muti-ethnic privilege/under-privilege? If so, how do any of these operate? (Notions of fixed identification and fluid identification come to mind.)

How does the right to self-identify work with (or jar against) how you are perceived? And how much control does one have over their racial identity? (Is it something that you decide, or is it something that others define for/assign to you or does it sit somewhere in between?) Are bi/multi racial people uniquely empowered or disempowered in determining these parameters?

And can these questions be be openly posed in an upfront, honest fashion? (With the original OP, all I kept thinking was: What is this piece trying/aiming to do here and what does the author *actually* want to say that she isn’t just coming out and saying? It never felt transparent to me.)

The thing is, while this is a pop culture blog, these complex discussions almost never work when they are channelled through the figure of any single celebrity who can’t possibly hope to shoulder the demands of these conversations or act as blank screen on which to project our specific interests/concerns.

Tiger’s specific issues aside – which *don’t* seem to have invited an intersectional approach with gender and class being simultaneously examined – I don’t think this would have worked any better had it been say, Wentworth Miller or Mariah.)

I understand the need for a starting or ‘tipping’ point an icebreaker if you will – but not if you never get beyond the starting point, or if the example in question ends up limiting the scope of the conversation, or results in a de-rail.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:52 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Westerly -

In reference to this:

Reading this, I can’t help but feel that an awful lot is left unsaid or swept under the carpet. And that these things will never be voiced unless there are honest, open transparent discussions that specifically deal with bi-racial and multi-ethnic perspectives on race and their various set(s) of problems in terms of race, where multi-bi-racial individuals/communities feel they are positioned in race discourse (as oppsed to where they’d like to be positioned) along with discussions of where they stand in relation to communities of color and vice versa.

Yes, I agree. But this is also difficult to achieve in a space where mixed race participants also do not feel welcome or comfortable expressing their opinion. There are two more posts on this, that may happen tomorrow – one an email from a long time reader, and one a dialogue largely between Thea and I that will be posted that gets to some of what you express in your comment.

But it also has to be understood that there are a lot of balls in the air here – and having the types of conversations people speak requires something severely lacking on the blog as it stands now: trust.

But I’ll get into that more thoroughly with the other two posts.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶
Westerly wrote:

Okay – I’ve already had my rather long say, so I’ll make this brief.

*applause for Dee Dee* (Wish I knew how to bold and italicise.)

But isn’t that the rather large, smelly elephant in the room that nobody, including non-black POCs, and some who identify as mixed/bi-racial wants to touch? i.e. How so-called ‘blackness’ exists as a fixed category or an anchoring base that enable not only enables whiteness but everything else supposedly ‘above’ it? (Blackness enables the entire project of ‘race’ in the first place.)

I think that’s why I was almost infuriated when the OP delivered the usual complaint about the predominance of the ‘black-and-white’ paradigm being used to frame this and other events (with other races being slotted in between and overlooked) when, hello!

That’s the gig.
That’s what comes of hundreds of years of colonialism and scientific racism.

(I actually wrote an article in response to it, especially about blackness as a fixed category that deliberately elides the bi and multiracial heritages of many ‘just black’ people – that many of us do not get to identify as anything other than black even if we are ‘mixed’ which I then buried in my computer in hesitation.)

No ‘black’, no white, no other, no frame. But it’s not as if black people begged to be the lesser, yet stabilising half of a ‘necessary’ binary that won’t go away. It’s not as if it’s a ‘privilege’ being the ’shadow’ of a whiteness that’s always on show as we are dragged behind in its wake like an appendage.

And that’s one of the critical questions that needs to be asked rather than other POCs complaining that things are framed in this reductive fashion (with the implication that blackness gets more than it’s fair share of the POC rationed spotlight). It doesn’t help when people behave as if they are mystified as to why this is…

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:35 pm ¶
Shazza wrote:

sweeterjuice,
Considering that most of the women coming out of the woodwork were hostesses, wait staff or club girls (not to mention escorts) Even his wife was working as a nanny when he met her. I don’t buy this ‘he just couldn’t find any women of color’ meme. He had a type judging from his high school sweetheart to his mistresses to his wife-he preferred blonde white women. And that’s his choice, I don’t really care.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:39 pm ¶
Westerly wrote:

…and I also think that *this* conversation (blackness as a super-concept in relation to other racial designations categories) ALSO needs to happen – but in conjunction with conversations about mixed/bi-racial identity rather than at the expense of the latter.

But I think that’s one of the many juggling balls and it’s easy for me to spout this stuff and then log off…

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 5:45 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

@Westerly: I think you’re dancing around a bit and doing some eliding yourself. If you think mixed race people on this site are asserting their own identity at the expense of black people, by blaming black people, you should come out and say so. And mention specific quotes and mention specific people when you do so.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

And frankly, it’s offensive when I see commenters mentioning the one-drop rule and phenotypes as if multiracial people are all naive moongazing unicorn-riders who have never ever heard of these concepts and grew up living in a fantasy universe without racial rules. We’ve heard all the explanations before, many, many times. Practically since birth. We’re living under the same racial rules as everyone else.

I’m half-white, half-Asian. And I’ve never been given a choice by society as to how to identify. I look more Asian because of random genetic factors. I have Asian eyes and white feet, but people look at my eyes before they look at my feet. My whole life I’ve been treated as Asian. I even used to resent other multiracial Asians who looked more white! Today I identify as Asian, I’m proud to be Asian, but I’m still mad that I was FORCED to identify that way, which is why I support self-identification so strongly. Even when it’s unpopular. Even for people who act like jerks. Even for people who “look white”. Even for people who “look black”. And so on…

This includes defending Barack Obama when all those right-wing commenters were saying he “wasn’t really black”. That absolutely enraged me, and I spent a lot of time writing about it and attacking them back. I didn’t see it so much as an attack on an individual, but as an attack on the right to self-identify… and that right absolutely includes the right to not identify as multiracial at all.

I didn’t see a problem with anything Thea said in the original article. I do think there was a problem with what she didn’t say. That is, outlining and specifically denouncing the racist frame that lays blame for enforcing racial rules on black people more than on anyone else. That was missing, and now she made up for that. I don’t think she needs to take anything else back.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 6:27 pm ¶
Westerly wrote:

@atlasien:

“If you think mixed race people on this site are asserting their own identity at the expense of black people, by blaming black people, you should come out and say so. And mention specific quotes and mention specific people when you do do so.”

????
I suppose this is my cue to leave this thread? Because rhetorical manouevre aside I really don’t appreciate being told:

a.) What I “really” think about an issue.
b.) Instructed on ‘how-to-post’ – by another poster.

Ironically enough I have already mentioned indvidual names (Lurker and pollolly wrote the posts that I liked and felt were the most useful) and I have *already* outlined what my specific problems were with Thea Lim’s OP – namely a lack of up-front, honest discussion about bi and multi-racial issues along with the traditional, unanalytical complaint about the ‘black-white’ paradigm – all of which I felt originated from and was implicit in the OP.

I feel that BOTH conversations can and need to take place, without the converstation about ‘blackness’ and how it functions as a base, burying or overshadowing conversations about the problems and realities of bi and multi-racial identity.

Other than that – I’m refusing your invitation to turn into some petty personal spat (which is always a great tool for de-politicisation and de-railment).

I’ve said what I wanted to say.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 6:46 pm ¶
Dee Dee wrote:

@Westerly – ‘But isn’t that the rather large, smelly elephant in the room that nobody, including non-black POCs, and some who identify as mixed/bi-racial wants to touch? i.e. How so-called ‘blackness’ exists as a fixed category or an anchoring base that enable not only enables whiteness but everything else supposedly ‘above’ it? (Blackness enables the entire project of ‘race’ in the first place.)

I ABSOLUTELY agree with your statement and hesitated to expound on this because for me, the ultimate conclusion is that race does not exist on a biological level; but merely as a tool of social and political control. And as such all TYPES of differences have been denied, ignored or blown over in the overriding attempt to maintain the rigid definitions under which we still operate. May we undergo serious paradigm shifts as this century continues!

@atlasien – I didn’t mention phenotypes in an attempt to offend anyone or imply that multiracial people are naive about such things. I used that as an example to show how a person of varied race is implicitly caught in the middle of two “categories” that in reality never existed. What we have labeled as “white” was never white but Nordic, Gallic, Etruscan, Phoenician, Celtic and so forth. What we have labeled as black was never black, but Mandinka, Bwiti, Bamana, Khosian, etc.

The larger existential question is how strongly any individual can define themselves outside of how they are defined (physically) by society. And this struggle applies to everyone of us. That is the conundrum. If you see me and simply label me as black based on my appearance do you do my heritage justice? No. The same way that my labeling you as Asian does not do your heritage justice.

That’s why I said that Tiger Woods is a reminder for me to consider each person I encounter solely as an individual. I truly believe that is in acknowledging everyone’s individuality that we can hopefully do away with the ills of race and hence racism.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:06 pm ¶
DreaD wrote:

“I’m half-white, half-Asian. And I’ve never been given a choice by society as to how to identify. I look more Asian because of random genetic factors. I have Asian eyes and white feet, but people look at my eyes before they look at my feet. My whole life I’ve been treated as Asian. I even used to resent other multiracial Asians who looked more white!”
atlasien, I think your comments above really point to the common ground and potential space for empathy that mono- and multi-racial POC might share.
First, your experience of being forced to identify in a certain way – regardless of how you might feel – parallels the experience of mono-racial individuals who have our identities decided for us by constructions of race. So – for example – as a mono-racial Black woman, I am supposed to like x, y, z, to think x, y, z, to act like x, y, z, …I’m sure you get the picture. However, none of these things may actually reflect who I am as an individual. The distance between who I am and who I “should” be can cause all sorts of anxiety and pain on my part, because members of my community as well as non-members may look at me as some sort of out-of-the-box freak. This is a shared experience for any POC (mono or bi) in the context of White Supremacy. We don’t make the rules of who gets called what and which qualities correlate to whom; but we sure do suffer from them – because “race” as a system is not meant to benefit us.
Second, you mention that in the past you’ve resented other multiracial Asians who look more white. This speaks to similar resentments that may lurk in some mono-racial folks minds, towards bi- or multi-racial folks who receive privilege based on their race. I think this is particularly (but not only) true when the bi- or multi-racial person has a White background. For example, I have felt anger and resentment in the past when Black/White bi-racial individuals have been considered nicer, more attractive, smarter, more interesting, etc. than myself, simply because of their Whiteness. This is evidence of their privilege. It doesn’t mean they asked for it. It doesn’t’ mean they shouldn’t identify as the wish. It doesn’t mean that they are even aware of it. It’s simply a symptom of the racist society we live in. But should that Black/White bi-racial individual not acknowledge that privilege, yes, that would make me angry and hurt as a mono-racial Black person. And it would make it very hard for me to have discussions and/or organize with them around race issues.
On the flip side, I have no idea what it is like to experience life as a multi-racial person. I’m learning a lot just reading these posts and blogs on Tiger. I don’t know what it’s like to have different parts of myself being “claimed” by different groups of people or to be made to feel like I don’t belong in my community (at least not because of my racial makeup). What I am learning the most is that at some point we have to realize we’re on the same team and suffering from the same ill of racism.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:22 pm ¶
Dee Dee wrote:

@atlasien – I also meant to mention in my post above that the term Asian is used frequently and implies certain ethnic backgrounds, when in reality the term encompasses hundreds to thousands of different types of people. When we say Asian do we mean Han, Uighur, Dravidian, Tamil? Does this term include the Negrito people of the Philippines? Just other ways that we have glossed over whole groups…

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:23 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

@Westerly: “a lack of up-front, honest discussion about bi and multi-racial issues”

See, that’s the dancing around part. The whole piece was about biracial and multiracial issues. It just didn’t happen to discuss those issues using a frame you agreed with. If you disagree with that frame, I’d prefer to actually see that disagreement, rather than a lot of vague accusations of dishonesty, an accusation which so conveniently feeds into the familiar stereotype of sneaky, lying, hiding, confused, traitorous, dishonest multiracial people.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:33 pm ¶
Meg wrote:

From my own experience, I’m always glad when someone identifies as multiracial mainly because it’s been a lifetime of other people forcing you to pick a team. The depth of feeling taking different views/approaches on the other post opened my eyes to look more critically at Tiger inc beyond what i found agreeable. By the end of 100 or so posts though it felt like it was a conversation i had no place being in cos i’d just piss someone off. To be honest i probably still don’t have a full grasp of the issues that sent the original post the way it went. But considering it’s holiday season and yet this blog is still active and addressing a tough and combustible issue i think that deserves a well done.I would like to dip my santa hat to Thea for delving back into the topic knowing that it’s sensitive and people were already annoyed, even if you still don’t agree at least she put something out there when it would have been easier to shut up shop for the holidays and head for the beach or whatever happens in the snowy-version of christmas.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
Lurker wrote:

To Dee Dee,

“But let me state, Tiger Woods is of “mixed race” and should definitely be able to self-identify. However, he suffers from what I’ve seen other mixed-race individuals (who are part African American) suffer from; the reality of their phenotypical appearance. What I mean by that is this – that although they definitely have a varied racial background, their immediate physical features lead strangers to glance at them and often times deem them to be black.”

Yes, the reality of systemic racism is such that the definition of race can totally be informed by “phenotype” or appearance or “genetic predisposition” one day and presumed religious or national origin or musical tastes the next. It is arbitrary and bullshitty and can/will change to suit the people who benefit from such arbitrations.

I go under the assumption that there is something at stake to any system of oppression when minorities begin to claim, reclaim, self-define and self-identify. That said, I’m going to pose some questions:

What, exactly, is at stake here?

Does the possibility of self-hatred in any person of color negate a right to agency of identity and expression?

How deeply invested are we in reiterating and enforcing the rules of a racist system? Why?

Can we imagine how we might conceive of our personhood if perhaps race and all its implications were not ascribed for us?

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 8:44 pm ¶
BlackIvy wrote:

As a black american im going to voice how I see it.

The reason why I think so many of us are uncomfortable with Tiger is because unlike the rest of us he was given a choice. Though our ancestors who were equally mixed in the EXACT SAME WAY, he has allowed to self identify while we are not because of some artificial statute of limitations. We are shut out and told its too late for us. We are “differently mixed” as several people have pointed out. Too bad too late. In response, we have decided to embrace blackness and be genuinely proud of who we are. But when we see someone like Tiger who, when given the choice, chooses even minute Dutch ancestry over his obvious black ancestry and culture (you cant tell me he wasnt part of a black community growing up with a self identifying black parent — great point by the way Michelle) its very frustrating. Its not fair that he should have to choose, but its NO MORE FAIR that we are NOT allowed to choose. And thats the part that gets left out of these multiracial debates. We are dismissed with excuses about how both our parents identify as black so we just dont understand. But thats not fair. So many of us look so white (not me FYI), and yet to claim whiteness while your hair is still a tad bit wooly or your lips are still full evokes mockery. And yet someone who is no whiter than us is supposed to be treated with greater deference?

Dont get me wrong, I totally respect ones ability to self identify, but if that self identification begins to subjugate one race to another it becomes very problematic. Also, its not fair if that right is handed out in a discriminate manner.

Furthermore, as someone mentioned, many of us “100 percent” (whatever that means) black americans were brought up in environments just as “white” as Tiger, and yet we dont use that as an excuse not to have some awareness and fluency in black culture. I personally was not even raised in america, does that mean I am any less black? No. I have one black american parent since my father died, just like Tiger Woods, and he had the benefit of growing up immersed in American society (which is largely black american) with a black american father and black american aunts and cousins etc.

If he were walking around equally emphasizing both his mother and his fathers culture, instead of selectively belittling blacks through tasteless jokes, I doubt many would have a problem. For example, no one has a problem with Kimora Lee who is very vocal about both sides of her family tree and seems to have sincere pride for both, and rightfully so. I know this is convoluted and there are many thoughts here (and I have to go cook dinner), but I guess I am trying to get to the bottom of why some AA react the way we do. Its not just about us calling him a “traitor” out of spite. That makes us sound like a version of the “angry black woman” this article was trying to put aside. Rather there is something more there. And I think it relates to our feeling like our own history and our own varied experiences as people evoking”whiteness” either phenotypically or through so called “white behaviors” are undermined when “genuinely” multi racial people are in the picture. Doubtless there are specific and visceral aspects of multiracialness that only people with two differently raced parents deal with, but to excuse Tiger’s behavior because he is multiraced, or to basically say that we shouldnt participate in the conversation because we just dont understand is insulting. And I think thats what the subtext is. Please pardon me if im wrong. But im basically frustrated with Tiger because I feel like if I “get it” — what it means to be black and how to be proud — why cant he?

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶
BT wrote:

Regarding “Cablinasian” –

I can imagine Tiger Woods, as a child, trying to make sense of his background and asking his parents, “What am I?” I can then imagine his parents trying to be very specific in breaking down his background, this resulting in the creation of a cute little nickname to encapsulate this background: “Cablinasian.” When Woods made the “Cablinasian” comment, I seriously doubt he was saying this was the specific term by which he wanted to be identified. It’s more likely Woods simply was sharing — with the public — a personal moment from his childhood to convey that he considers himself to be “mixed” or “multiracial” or “African-American and Asian-American” or “Asian-American and African-American,” etc. Perhaps it was a personal decision, perhaps it was a business decision, or perhaps it was both. But, as Thea touched on in her last post, after the negative reaction Woods received when he tried to talk about his identity, perhaps he figured what would be the point of talking about it again. Woods might struggle/have issues with his background/identity even today. Or he might not. I’m simply arguing that there has been far too much emphasis put on the term “Cablinasian.” As if this is a solid piece of evidence to bolster a view that Woods seeks to obscure that his late father was African-American, and more specifically, that Woods seeks to obscure that he has African ancestry. As Najah noted, even the placement of “Ca” (for Caucasian) before “blinasian” has been used by some to gauge the mindset of Woods on this matter. Would some people truly see things differently if Woods, as a child, had only put the “Bl” or “Asian” first or second and the “ca” last, resulting in “Blasianinca” or “Asianblinca”?

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
pilot wrote:

I’m also half-white and half-asian, and have had a lot of other mixed race people point out my privilage in that i look more white than asian. on the other hand, i’ve had people mistake me as chinese, japanese, korean, mexican, native american, italian, etc, my whole life. i do believe that i have received privilage for my looks, (in addition to my ability, sexuality, heritage, class, background, etc.) but at the same time it’s a little more complicated than merely looking a certain way.

at this point in my life, i can’t truly say whether i look more white or asian. i don’t know if this is something that has to do with me being mixed race or more with my own personal self-image issues, but i can never get a grasp on what or who i really look like. As a child, it seems i looked more asian, bor at least i was teased a lot more for it. in middle school, i tried to alter my appearance so i would look more white. today, i get so many mixed reactions about my race that i can’t definitely say what i look like and i’ve given up. i’ve found that what race people perceive me as depends a lot more on their own experiences and perspectives on race than my own.

That’s why to me, a statement like, ‘the reality of their phenotypical appearance’ confuse me a bit. Like atlasian said, i feel like my appearance is not based on anything real (people overlooking some of my features for others) but on what others want to see.

Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 11:02 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

@atlasien,

“I’m half-white, half-Asian. And I’ve never been given a choice by society as to how to identify. I look more Asian because of random genetic factors. I have Asian eyes and white feet…”

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by white feet?

One of the recent comments(and really I need to get back in the habit of taking notes on who said what, my apologies) questioned whether it makes sense for Tiger to identify with a a part of his heritage (Caucasian) that his father didn’t even identify with.Bear with me here- as I’m writing this, I’m trying to work out my own personal experience in my head as well:

If Earl Woods had a small percentage of white ancestry, and felt it wasn’t significant enough to include in his identity, then it seems like Tiger wouldn’t have a reason to really include it as well (after all, if many of us tried to identify with every slither of heritage, we’d be here all day). But if that white ancestry was there, and fairly so, yet Earl didn’t feel as if he belonged or identified with that part of himself, then the result changes, in that that was Earl’s individual opinion, which means Tiger is allowed to have one as well. I think maybe you guys can see what I mean here?

My family ancestry, as I have been able to vaguely surmise through some equally vague answers from my grandmother, is largely black, but definitely Cherokee and white(from south London, to be specific) as well. Having never seen my grandfather, I have to assume that my mother got most of her features (narrow eyes, high cheekbones, “medium” skin tone) from him, also assuming that those Cherokee roots aren’t that far along the family tree. Though she identifies as Black, I choose to identify as Black and Cherokee/Native American. My mom was never really one for much analysis, so I can understand that it does not hold the same significance to her, but her ancestry is mine as well, and it has significance to me, so I choose to incorporate it into my identity.

…Annd I’d be willing to send a check to the person who could sift through that jumbled mess.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 1:12 am ¶
najah wrote:

@atlasien you said “the familiar stereotype of sneaky, lying, hiding, confused, traitorous, dishonest multiracial people.” I’ve never heard that particular stereotype. Or actually any stereotype of “multiracial people” as a group or as a whole. Where does this come from? I took westerly’s comment to be about the original post and the fact that certain issues related to black identity were not discussed in relation to the other issues. but maybe I misunderstood.
@ BT–point taken, but I still think that was what threw me and others I know off about the “cablinasian” comment. I just pointed it out, b/c I think that the op missed the reason for the comments criticizing Tiger’s use of that particular word (as opposed to blasian) from some black people such as myself. as someone else noted, his parents didn’t necessarily consider themselves mixed race (as in his father didn’t consider himself caucasian etc.), so it came off as strange that particular heritage was featured so prominently (as opposed to Asian or Thai or Black). maybe I am just reading too much into it…

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 1:16 am ¶
Dee Dee wrote:

@Lurker – You’ve asked some provocative questions and here are my answers:

What, exactly, is at stake here?

As far as the system of racial oppression is concerned, the definitive boundaries with which to label dark people and thus hold them down is at stake. On the part of POC, the ability to move away from an undesirable social status is at stake. We can see this trend at work among all types of POC all over the world; brought to light via the desire for lighter skin and Eurocentric features, colored contacts, plastic surgery and also detailed definitions of racial heritage.

Does the possibility of self-hatred in any person of color negate a right to agency of identity and expression?

No, I don’t believe so. I would posit that most people possess pockets of self hatred which can hopefully become areas of self growth and exploration. But the right to self expression should always exist, especially in a country like ours that has uplifted the idea of the individual.

How deeply invested are we in reiterating and enforcing the rules of a racist system? Why?

I think as a society we are still very invested in reiterating this racist system because in a certain sense it has become an arena of familiarity; even if that comfort zone is detrimental to our psyches and livelihood in the long run. I do believe that many POC are seeking and exploring ways to change our racist system but it’s an overwhelming task when dealing with such an uniformed and dogmatic media.

Can we imagine how we might conceive of our personhood if perhaps race and all its implications were not ascribed for us?

My answer is not really. As an artist, I have plenty of moments when I can come together with other artists and be immersed in song, dance and verse without ever feeling that my race “matters” or is even to my benefit or detriment. But it’s in those mundane moments (shopping, searching for internet dates, auditioning for roles or even discussing current events) that I feel that my race moves to the forefront of my existence. And my ability to about freely seems to be stifled. As much as I’d like to move away from labels of any kind, I imagine that belonging to a tribe based more along the lines of occupation or even socio-political beliefs would be a relief for me. This is something for me to seriously consider as I move forward in life

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 1:38 am ¶
TJ wrote:

Mixed race. Okay. I’ll give him that. Self identification is a little trickier. Do oppressed minorities really have the “right” to self identify if so wouldn’t Jim Crow have been really easy to get out of?
Very telling Woods claims to be “CA” where is the “Ca” coming from. Blasian is accurate Cablasian is just an attempt to siege white supremacy and exert it over and against his own very clear racial realities. Because hes a public figure this is damaging. Maybe we shouldn’t say he is rejecting blackness but one can’t deny that he is embracing a phantom whiteness while at the very least obscuring his black identity with racist jokes and stereotype.
Because my father is mixed race and I am not I have a special relationship to this issue. I saw his “CA’ as another way to say “regular” “unscary” “not like the rest of them” the Blasian part I see no problem with.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 8:54 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

@ashlynn: “White feet”: I have feet that are size 10.5. In Japan, shoe sizes for women stop abruptly at size 8. I literally cannot buy shoes for women in Japan, only men’s shoes.

@najah: that’s an incredibly, incredibly old and familiar stereotype, and anyone who identifies as multiracial is going to encounter aspects of it at some time. We are constantly accused of trying to “fool” people just by existing. It happened to me a few weeks ago at the doctor’s office, of all places. It’s a pretty important stereotype to be aware of because I see it EVERYWHERE that multiracial identity is discussed by people who don’t primarily identify as multiracial. And it’s primarily those accusations of “dishonesty” which make us sick and drive us away from those discussions.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 9:32 am ¶
little mixed girl wrote:

@ najah

While stereotypes of mixed people might not seem as…out there (?) as ones of monoracial people, they definately are out there.

The ones I’ve seen most of are:

- they belong to 2 (or more) races, so we don’t know which side they are actually loyal to = not trustworthy

- they belong to 2 (or more) races, and are thus confused on what they are

- they belong to 2 (or more) races and have to “hide” one to be accepted in society

Through high school and university there were times when I’d just come upon book after book with multiracial characters that were portrayed as sneaky, untrustworthy, confused, etc.

The one that stood out was this one X-Files book. The bad writing was … well bad, but lines like “…the Amerasian narrowed his eyes…” made it even worse.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 9:49 am ¶
usha wrote:

I understand why Dana and her comment are banned, and as a mixed-race person myself, I absolutely believe in my ~and everyone else’s~ right to self identify.

But could someone speak to the similarities and overlap between ’self identifying’ and historical ‘passing’ (as ‘part native american’ or south asian or white)?
I am not totally unable to understand why some black people may see something similar in Tiger’s behavior, and perhaps feel personally and racially slighted.

I hope this comment is ‘in bounds’. If it isn’t I apologize in advance.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 6:12 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:

Thea, I really appreciate your thoughts on identifying as a mixed race person. It is obviously not your job to educate me, but I really come away from these types of articles feeling challenged to delve deeper into these sorts of issues. It really makes my head swim to think of all of the conflicting societal, cultural, internal, familial, etc. issues that Tiger (and other mixed race individuals in the spot light and out of the spot light) had to navigate to come to the personal decision of how he identifies. I really strive to give my son the support and space he needs to explore his own identity and I often struggle with how to do this. I want him to love himself and to see himself as a smart, strong, and beautiful child and I really want to support him in his own self-identification. Sites like this are really helpful in that they give me some perspective.

@cocolamala: The way you explained your issues with Tiger not “dating”…or whatever… black women completely resonates with me. I appreciate how you put that out there.

Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 8:01 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:

Slightly OT–

@ atlasien: Oh no! Size 10.5 for women, the size shoemakers choose to skip. “Sizes available in half-sizes from 5-10, 11.” COMMA!

Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 12:29 am ¶
ashlynn wrote:

@atlasien: Ahh. Not that I care to claim any stereotypes, but big feet is something I’ve always seen ascribed to black people- men in particular *major eyeroll*. But like I said, I don’t want it anyway, so hey. And since I am a 10 1/2 WIDE on a good day(12 on a not so good) as well(shoutouts to lunanoire too!), let us collectively groan!

Posted 24 Dec 2009 at 4:01 am ¶
BSK wrote:

Kind of off-topic, but I had a question re: Tiger that I am curious to hear what the readers here think.

I’ve heard some people say that, if Tiger was a “playboy” (for lack of a better word) at heart, he should have just gone the Derek Jeter route, lived a tasteful bachelor life, and never settled down in the first place. Now, obviously, that’s a big assumption to make in terms of what he actually wanted. But, let’s assume for a moment it is the case: that Tiger was never someone who could commit and, as such, never should have.

Would this REALLY have been an option for him? There was already enough skepticism and criticism of him for being the young, brash, black guy on the golf course. If he was also a swinging bachelor, wouldn’t this have fulled otherised him in a conservative sport like golf? Is it possible that the golf-world itself pressured Tiger to some degree to conform to a lifestyle he otherwise would not have chosen? Or was Tiger already heading down this dubious path long before? Remember, even before he joined the PGA, he was already part of the golf establishment as an amateur. Thanks!

Posted 25 Dec 2009 at 11:25 am ¶
rosmar wrote:

The idea that blackness is what undergirds the entire racial project is simply incorrect (responding here to Westerly). The creation of race was a process, and one that was as much about the genocide of American Indians and the violence of colonization (including of Asia) as it was about the killing and enslaving of Black people. The process of racialization created the categories of race, largely through violence and exploitation, but not in the exact same way for all the people involved.

Posted 05 Jan 2010 at 6:30 pm ¶
tc wrote:

Another comment from an outsider (not from North American). I also didn’t have any issues with Thea’s original post. I am mixed race and grew up in apartheid South Africa. One of the hardest things about that (and I can imagine it would not only happen there) was that there really was no room for me. Nobody wanted me as a part of their community. I was met with so many baffled looks and questions like ‘What the hell are you?’ People would yell out insults on the street, or assume that I was ‘easy’ because as someone on the lowest apartheid thrung I’d have sex with anyone who would have me. So being able to self-identify is one of thet most empowering things for someone like me. It isn’t a rejection of any part of myself, rather it is me taking control of the name, and names are so powerful. Its so hurtful when people claim that picking something to self identify with means a rejection of part of my heritage. I won’t deny that a lot of my self-identification has to do with how others treat me. Of course it does. I can only imagine what it would have been like for Tiger, to be in such a spectacular minority in the world of professional golf. How that treatment would have influenced him – I don’t know.

My experience of being mixed race is pervasive. I often find it so upsetting when I meet someone, we’ll get a long really well and then I get the inevitable ’so what are you anyway?’ question. And its often quite possessive – there is upset if I am not the race they assume me to be.

The philandering aside, I do feel really sorry for Tiger. His texts, as Thea points out, show so much familiar racial insecurity, so much obsession over race. I wonder if there is any relationship between this insecurity and his subsequent behaviour?

Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 3:34 pm ¶
Sonnyboy wrote:

@ Black Ivy.

While no one else has commented on what you said, I think you hit the nail on the head about what a lot of black people feel or at least the ones is my social circle or family where there is indeed a lot of racial mixing but a lot of identification no one was /is given a choice about– but even I myself have a hard time expressing that sentiment without falling into the traps the moderators want us to avoid.

Yeah, everyone has a right to self identify EXCEPT “black” people born in America of two “black” parents. I mean how many of us know black people with two black parents who look whiter than somone who has one black parent and one white parent and in a few cases two white parents?

Ye,t even the author’s new explanation of terms seems a bit dismissive of their experience or doesnt seem to acknowledge that their experience could share similarities with other mixed race individuals simply because they are mixed differently.

It just seems to be setting up another heirarchy for how these issues must be viewed or discussed and I find that a little off putting as well. I get the general idea, but doesn’t change my gut reaction–however other parts of this piece did, so thanks!

Posted 11 Jan 2010 at 8:12 pm ¶