You might have heard that a bastion of male only membership
has decided to let two women join.
Augusta National Golf Club recently asked Condoleezza Rice and business
woman Darla Moore to join. There’s been
a lot of comment on whether they were pressured to do so.
Back in 1990, Shoal Creek Country Club in Alabama, and in
fact all clubs, were told if they did not allow blacks or women to become
members, they would not be hosting a PGA tournament. Some said they would rather discriminate,
thank you. Augusta National must have
had a hot meeting back then, because they decided to open their doors to blacks. Forget women though, that was simply too
much. Former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm
said, “Of my two handicaps, being female put many
more obstacles in my path than being black.”
Many say that August National is a private
club and ought to be allowed to openly and smugly discriminate where it
pleases. That they should not be forced
to accept anyone. In 2002, Martha Burk
challenged then Chairman Hootie Johnson to admit women. Hootie was faced with losing television
sponsors for two years, but he would not take women even with though it was
financially in his best interest to do so.
Never mind that it was the right thing to do. He famously said, “"that
timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet." Wow.
Your ego astounds.
So it wasn’t a financial decision to admit women. One can only wonder why they bowed to
pressure now. What was it that changed
their minds, and how do we go about using those reasons to further supporting
girls in the future, or any disenfranchised populations?
Why, in 1842, when the borders of Maine and New Brunswick
were disputed, did the US and Britain choose not to go to war once more? Why did American Daniel Webster and Englishman
Alexander Baring, the Baron of Ashburton, decide to sit down in some room
together and cohesively draw borders, thus avoiding war and countless lives? Imagine what horrors and grief they
saved. It was the first time diplomacy had been used to settle disputes among the two
countries. What precipitated it?
In 1844, candidate for the Presidency James
Polk, known for his expansionist views, ran on the platform of fighting with
Britain for control of Oregon Territory.
His slogan “Fifty Four Forty or Fight” is well known. Well, he won the presidency. But he didn’t fight for the fifty-fourth line
of latitude. How come? He obviously had the support of America. He could have had a meaty chunk of present
day British Columbia. Vancouver, BC
would have been American. No, instead a
committee decided that the 49th line of parallel would be the border
and thus it stands to this day, the longest international border shared by two
countries. Why didn’t they fight? How can we use those reasons to settle
disputes today between fractions? Was it
economic? As we can see from the Augusta
National, economic reasons can be trumped by ego. Few like being forced into compliance.
So what finally happened behind those closed
doors at Augusta National that made them open up and let down their barriers? What do you think? Can we use it to solve the great divide
currently at play between Republicans and Democrats? Can we use it to settle disputes in the
Middle East too?