Jim Brown Attacks Tiger and Jordan For Not Being Social Activists
Jim Brown, one of the best running backs of all time, is coming after Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan for not being social activists. He had this to say to Bryant Gumbel on Real Sports (Bill Russell also chimes in):
Brown: “There are one or two individuals in this country that are black that have been put in front of us as an example. But they're basically under a system that says, ‘Hey, they're not gonna do a certain thing.’ Yes, that disappoints me because I know they both know better.”
Gumbel: “Tiger and Michael?”
Brown: “ Yeah, I know they both know better, OK. And I know they both can do better without hurting themselves.”
Brown: “You know what’s so interesting about Tiger to me? If it was just a matter of me looking at an individual that's a monster competitor, this cat is a mamajama; he is a killer. He'll run over you, he'll kick your ass. But as an individual for social change, or any of that kind of ----? Terrible. Terrible. Because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that's his contribution. And in the real world, man, I can't teach no kids to play golf and that's my contribution, if I got that kind of power.”
Russell: “We’re losing a whole generation of kids. And, I for one, would not give up on them. And Jim will not give up on them because we know that when we were kids, there were certain influences that made our lives livable.”
Gumbel: “Why did you choose to get so intimately involved with helping young black men who were engaged in gang warfare?”
Brown: “Because simply, it’s the most devastating culture to come along that affects black people in a long time. How can we act like we don’t see young black men killing each other? Rome is burning and so there can be no education, there can be no economic development, there can be no family structure. There can be nothing as long as we allow this particular culture to exist.
This discussion brings up many questions. One, should athletes be used for social change? Is their role as players meant for advocating for human/civil rights, or are they meant to just play? What is their best role? I believe that they should do both. They play, obviously, but they have this platform from which to speak from. They have kids who look up to them, listen to them, worship them. If they don't use it, they're cheating the world, because it could be a better place. However, and this is where I disagree with Jim Brown, you have to be comfortable in that role. You have to be able to a star on the field and off, and for some, like Tiger and Jordan, they just aren't comfortable. There's not always going to be the athlete who is both great on the field, and has the charisma to bring about social change off it. Who is that player? I don't know. The name that comes to mind is LeBron James. He is great on the court, and seems to have an affable personality off it. Tiger and Jordan, they don't necessarily have it. But if a player has the ability, they should speak out on what they believe is right.
Thanks for returning to The Blog of Champions!
