Jim Brown knocks Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan for not being individuals for social change in a segment on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. Brown says, regarding Tiger Woods, "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."
I get Brown's point regarding both Tiger and MJ, but I'm not exactly sure I agree with the very notion that Woods or Jordan should be individual's for social change. The truth of the matter is that both Woods and Jordan, I believe, Woods for sure, have foundations and give money to charity. Beyond that, what are rich people expected to do in this country? And, if Tiger and MJ are anything, beyond being black, it's taht they are super, super, rich.
Again, this isn't saying that Brown's wrong, it's just saying that Tiger and MJ, most Americans, me included, and hopefully, Jim Brown, are doing what we are expected to do. That is take care of our personal "tribes", our families - - spouses, parents, children, nieces and nephews and grandparents - - before taking care of anyone else.
Isn't that the goal of any individual anywhere in the world? Besides, social change has always come about due to huge movements directed by groups of human beings, not by any one individual. When Muhammed Ali said that he had "no quarrel with them Viet Cong", he meant it. He didn't think that he was taking a political stand. It was a personal stand. It led to a political stand.
We take care of our "tribes", our families, first. Then, we do what we feel is right for everyone else afterwards. Maybe, Jim Brown should think about that before hitting another woman.
I know, I know, I didn't have to go there, but it is sort of ridiculous that Brown is proselytizing, don't you think?