Across America, I expect sports columnists to be remarking on how the crown has been passed from a black man to a brown man in what used to be the white man's sport (largely because the only way you could get on the court if your skin was darker than manilla was by caddying). But why talk about the transition from black to brown? Why not say that a browner black man was overtaken by a blacker brown man? Or that the yellow man lost to the brown man?
If you had never heard of either player, and you were told that one of the two was black, who would you pick? Face it, phenotypewise, they're pretty similar. They both have non-kinky hair, wide noses, and medium-thick lips. If you were to tell me that one of them was of Thai decent, I could pick Tiger out easily. But, if I didn't "know better" I would have as hard a time picking the black golfer out of this pair as I do picking the black diplomat when I see Colin Powell and Prince Bandar sitting side by side.
On a related topic, I'm becoming slightly annoyed at all the columnists that contrast Tiger and Vijay by talking about Tigers talent and Vijay's work ethic. Yes, Tiger is amazingly talented, especially given his age. Yes, Vijay has a prodigious work ethic, while Tiger's personal life seems to be slowing him down a wee bit. Yet these are hardly fair labels. Tiger's work ethic is amazing, and still one of the tops in the field. It's unclear to me whether Vijay is really working significantly harder (he plays more tournaments, but does he train more?) Similarly, to ignore Vijay's talent is absurd.
Given that both athletes share many of the same traits -- hard work, high levels of talent, coolness under pressure -- why is it that they get described the way they do? Well, this division is consistent with descriptions of black athletes in other sports as innately talented, but not intelligent or hard working. Similarly, it's a common trope to hear that Asians are hard working, but have few innate abilities. My point, which I've belabored far long enough, is that I get a whiff of racial stereotyping when I read about these two, not anything I could prove in a court of law, but enough to set my teeth on edge.
Instead, I'd prefer to read sportswriting like this, from FoxSports:
"... if you look at just the current PGA Tour season, the gap between Singh and Woods is even greater. After taking the money title from Woods last season, Singh is almost a lock to end his rival's run as Player of the Year. Singh has six wins on the PGA Tour this year; no one else has more than two and Woods has just the lone win, more than six months ago at the Accenture Match Play Championship."
So it was really only a matter of time before Singh supplanted Woods atop the rankings."
[snip]
"On the very first hole after Woods moved into a tie for the lead, Singh took it right back, making a tricky par putt on 14, while Woods missed an almost-identical putt. Singh added to his lead on 15, sticking his approach shot within five feet of the hole. Then he made absolutely certain Woods' 264-week run atop the rankings came to an end with back-to-back birdies to finish the round."
"So to sum up, with the No. 1 ranking on the line and the score all tied up, Singh birdied three of the final five holes to win going away. Clearly, this is not a man who's frightened of Tiger Woods."
"And why should he be? Right now, he's the better player."
FoxSports, your home for post-racial sports reporting. (!?!)
