Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Bring Me The Head Of Sergio Garcia

Golf, the game which pretends to be a sport, is introducing a ban on "belly-putting". Belly-putting is where golfers use their largest natural asset instead of their hands to control the putter, essentially anchoring it against their substantial gut and removing half of the difficulty of nudging a ball into a hole from a few feet away. I realise that any analogy between golf and sport is essentially flawed, but the equivalent might be for soccer players to be required to only use their feet. Shock! Horror!

The Royal and Ancient and the US Golf Association (i.e. the Brits and the Septics respectively) have, a mere 40 years after these cheat-sticks started to be used, come up with a 40-page report (that's an easy calculation!) justifying their decision to implement the ban, which comes into effect in only 3 years' time.

Golf club makers (although the specialised clubs are not themselves being banned, they would become redundant under the new rule, so no self-interest there, of course) had already made their opposing views known, claiming that it would reduce the attractiveness of golf, by ... err ... introducing some sort of skill or requiring people to be in some sort of physical shape other than round, either of which would be too much of a hurdle for the average lard-arse. Call me controversial but I believe that's where watching golf on TV, or its close cousin, sleeping on the sofa, fit in.

In other golf news, Sergio Garcia has stirred up outrage amongst the PC brigade by suggesting that an American might like fast food. At some sort of golf awards dinner (largest belly, most horrific trousers?), Garcia - whose dislike of the hooker-chasing Tiger Woods is well-known - was asked if he would invite Woods for dinner in the US next month: hardly a serious question. Garcia replied that he would do so every night and would offer fried chicken. Apparently, this is racist. FFS! Fried chicken is an American staple, exported around the world to the delight of gourmands everywhere. Surely offering someone their national dish is the height of hospitality? If someone said they would offer me curry and chips, I would be delighted.

Compare and contrast with the following recently sent by the French and British Chambers in an invitation for a joint networking event:

Or is that racist too?


  1. Fried chicken is strongly associated *inside* the United States with African Americans, and referring to them eating it is typically considered a negative racial stereotype. I know nothing about Garcia and personally dislike Woods, and it's certainly possible it was an unfortunate coincidence that he chose the term -- but it's equally possible it was intended as a racially-motivated slur.

    Anybody who's spent any time in America is aware of the stereotype, and short of adding collard greens -- another stereotypically "black" foodstuff -- to the mix or using an outright racial epithet, you can't be much more obviously racist than to suggest a black person eat fried chicken.

  2. Understood, Mr. Mous, and thank you for your comment. However, instead of wallowing in self-righteousness, self-pity even, I think people should rise above seeing or even looking for insults. By defining foodstuffs as "black" and then ringfencing any comments about those foods as racist, one is both perpetuating and encouraging the stereotype and hence creating a racist slur for use by true racists. I seem to remember the French rose above comments about "cheese monkeys" from the Americans during one of their (the Americans') Middle Eastern jaunts.

    When I first went to the US, the equivalent perceived slur used watermelons. At the same time, every other American asked me if it was still foggy in London. Perhaps I should have taken that as racist.