The Year of the Tiger

What in the world could this posting be about?

It's definitely not about Chinese astrology. The new year is actually the year of the Rat, once Chinese New Year hits. So, it's not about that.

Thank God. Astrology is for nitwits. And women with too much time on their hands. Not saying that these groups are mutually exclusive. In fact, the overlap may be uncanny.

It could be about nooses and lynchings and our favorite Cablinasian golfer. While this topic is sort of interesting, I honestly don't know about the relevance of Tiger Woods as a socially influential icon, a la Jackie Robinson. The biggest problem is with Tiger as an agent of change is that he's a golfer. There's a fascination with blacks in elitist arenas, like golf and racing (remember, open wheel racing was originally a contest for the rich, unlike NASCAR). I think that it would be much more interesting for an NBA superstar (a la LeBron) to be an agent for social change by going back and helping his community at large in a truly influential way. It's one thing to employ your posse. It's another to stimulate economic recovery in the streets and make social change happen by uplifting your people. It's much harder to do so as an icon in an unapproachable arena.

I think that part of this is with the notion of equality at the highest levels. The problem is, what this does is bring up the black folks who are already in higher positions. Who benefits most from aid that's achievement-based, but only after you allow minority candidates? It's not the inner city kids from lousy schools. Sure, you'll be able to fish out a couple of kids who would have been otherwise lost to the environment. But the folks that benefit the most are the children of existing black professionals. Why should someone get additional benefits, when they are already in a position to succeed? Why should they have an edge if they are black, but came from a family with a mother who was a lawyer and a father who was a stock broker?

So what does this do? You push up a few, while largely ignoring those at the bottom. This is the same thing for golf. It's hard to lift people up from high perch. It's much easier to push them up from the bottom. The black media is calling for someone to latch on to. I wonder if this is for themselves, or for Black America. The black media is successful, educated, and have already broken into the upper echelon of society. Tiger would be their icon. And maybe it would trickle down to the masses.

But I wonder how many black kids out there knew Ralph Wiley's work. If it's there, but it's not accessible, does it really matter (in terms for affecting change)? The black masses may have a hard time identifying with Tiger. This was a kid that was golfing from the time he was 2. He was on national TV as a little kid, and went to Stanford. This isn't inner-city America. For this to work, it would be trickle-down social change. I don't believe in the trickle-down theory in most matters. No point starting now.

Geez. I thought that this wasn't about Tiger Woods...

Well, it isn't, really. At least it wasn't. I have a tendency to ramble.

Duh. So what were you really planning on writing about?

So what I was originally planning on writing about was this little nugget that was on the news a couple weeks ago. Now, apparently, the idiots who provoked the tiger out in Frisco, were drunk and stoned. Awesome. Somehow, this just gets more and more amusing. Especially if you read the comments on this New York Times blog.

My buddy Dino said it best when he said, "There just aren't enough predators to keep the prey in check." He was suggesting that the attitudes of society don't allow for enough of the predator-prey interaction to help people become acculturated. But it would've been cooler had he meant that we should have more tigers running around in the streets.

-Chairman