Am I the only one who thinks the firestorm over Don Imus referring to a group of young black female basketball players as “nappy headed ho’s” is just way over the top?
I mean, the guy’s not a church deacon, or a senator, or even a sports broadcaster. He’s a shock jock. It’s his job to push humor to the edge and beyond the edge. So he made a joke that was in poor taste. He admitted it. He apologized for it. He was suspended for it, for crying out loud. And there are STILL people who want to drive him off the air? While the Reverend Al Sharpton is railing against him, has he never bothered to crack the Bible he ostensibly preaches and stumbled over the passage about erring being human and forgiving divine?
It’s IMUS, for crying out loud. If Imus referred to a group of young Jewish basketball players as Matzoh-slinging Jewboys, I’d just shrug and say, “Whatever, man. It’s Imus.” The guy’s filling however many hours his show is every day, and it’s live. If he goes over the line and then admits he did and apologizes, I’m sorry, but that should be the end of it. Anyone who’s flogging it beyond that point has their own agenda and is just using this to further it. If Al Sharpton is that upset about Black women being spoken of in such a disrespectful manner, then why not spend his time going after the radio stations playing rap songs that call Black women “ho’s” (when they’re not talking about killing cops.) Or are slurs and racism only acceptable when they stem from Sharpton’s own constituency?
PAD
• 
Ticking a few boxes:
1) This ain’t a free speech issue. MSNBC and CBS are both paying this man large sums of money to represent them on the air; they do, in fact, have a right to decide that his views and the way he expresses him don’t represent them well.
2) Whether or not it’s “overkill” to still call for his firing after the two-week suspension was announced is entirely a function of context, which the news media hasn’t done a great job of providing; if this was the first time he’d ever said something offensively racist, I’d be in full agreement with you, Peter, but from everything I’ve heard, this falls into the category of a “pattern of behavior”. And if the two-week suspension isn’t going to change his behavior, and if he’s going to continue to be offensively racist on the air, then yes, people do have the absolute right to let CBS and MSNBC know that they’re being ill-served by their commentators and should replace them. They’re not trying to put the man in jail, just to point out that racist speech does not need to be subsidized and distributed by mass-media conglomerates.
3) “Tu quoque” is not a valid defense. Pointing to the hate speech of others does not excuse, defend, or exonerate Imus. What rappers may or may not get away with is just not relevant; Imus’ case was clear cut, inexcusable, and part of a pattern of racist behavior. Not much worth going over, really.
4) Then again, he might just need someone to explain and defend his behavior. Perhaps he should consider long-time Avengers villain Imus Champion?
This ain’t a free speech issue. MSNBC and CBS are both paying this man large sums of money to represent them on the air; they do, in fact, have a right to decide that his views and the way he expresses him don’t represent them well.
Absolutely. Which is why the decision should be entirely up to them and not Al Sharpton.
If Imus was black this wouldn’t even be a story–just another rap song.
*************
SER: I honestly don’t get the comparisons to rap music here. For one thing — and not to hijack the thread — I think rap tends to get dogpiled for doing what rock music has done for years (perhaps more intense). Johnny Cash sang about shooting a man in Reno to watch him die. “Runaround Sue” is pretty much a song about a “ho” (just perhaps with more euphemisms). The important thing to remember, though, is that no rap song has ever targeted a specific person. Is Eminem using the words “bìŧçhëš” and “fággøŧš” in his music even remotely the same thing as his going on a radio show and calling *specific* people “bìŧçhëš” and “fággøŧš”? It’s like the Ann Coulter/Isaiah Washington comments.
Am I really a hypocrite for considering HUCK FINN one of my favorite books or PULP FICTION one of my favorite films but not being thrilled with the idea of Imus referring to a specific person as a “ņìggër” on his radio show, for example?
The rap music arguments, to me, are a smokescree — a way of blaming the victim (or at least the victim’s presumed culture). Imus is a bully who demeaned kids. (I also think that the inherent sexism in his statements was overlooked because of the racism — it’s another example of women — not matter what they do (see Hillary Clinton) — being judged based on their physical appearance).
In the beginning of The Hustler where Paul Newman asks George C Scott to move because Newman wanted more room to make his shot, Scott nudges his stool just enough to make a scraping noise. The inconvenience to Imus making restitution for ridiculing a group of college girls based on his low expectations of their ethnicity and gender was just loud enough to make a scraping noise. Good for Reverend Al for raising hëll.
For any other job, Don Imus would be fired. But he is privileged because honesty is a managed commodity of his public role. Well, Imus said he was wrong, and he was sorry. Good, now let him take the responsibility the rest of us live by — for the track record of his entire career — let him take his lottery-winnings and let him be escorted off the national stage. Let him demonstrate his regret with something better than him plaintively insisting that he’s a “good person.”
You heard it here, folks: ridiculing a group of college girls based on Don Imus’s low expectations of their kinky hair and promiscuity isn’t racist.
Black life is simply cheaper than white: in contrast to the arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim country the size of California in retaliation for white people getting killed, I wouldn’t be surprised if black people who lived through that time wonder if they hallucinated the civil rights movement also.
How about this, Sharpton, Jackson, and who ever else would not even be an issue if the News Channels (CNN &FOX, I dunno about MSNBC) would shut the hëll up about it. The only break I got on CNN, while waiting at the doctor’s office yesterday, was the startling revelation that Larry Berket (?) was Anna-Nichole’s BABY-DADDY (was that too racially insensitive towards white folks?). I personally thought her son Daniel was the father, but that is the sick monkey in me. Anyway, I think that things have power because we allow them to have power. I remember the first time I heard a respected news anchor refer to the “N-Word”. I laughed my ášš off. Now we have people like Gerry Rivers… I mean Geraldo Rivera…Ranting and raving about he doesn’t even like to type the word (this was during the Michael Richards blow-up). Grow up. People are mean. People are áššëš. Wipe your nose off and go about your day.
And another thing, when I was in the Navy, as the only white guy in my shop, I was called a “Bean-headed Honkey”. When I complained about the remark to my supervisor, I was laughed at. You know what? I survived. Life goes on. And to this day, I still don’t think I have a bean head.
Also, everyone is saying that Imus’s comments are racist, but has any one looked that word up? The comments seem a bit more bigoted to me.
The important thing to remember, though, is that no rap song has ever targeted a specific person.
It’s to your credit that you don’t know enough about rap to know that this is untrue. Actually, there are many rap songs that specifically single out other rappers, ex-wives, managers, etc. Then the offended party spends 3 minutes coming up with rhymes for “çøçkšûçkër”, steals a riff from some 80s band and sells their reply. Repeat. Rinse.
Sure, Peter Paul and Mary got into a singing tiff with The Mamas and the Papas way back when but Papa John Phillips never tried to bust a cap in Paul’s ášš over it.
Anyhoo…just thought I’d also point out that not only white people died on 9/11. That is so obvious I’m almost embarassed to point it out. I don’t know why anyone would think otherwise–an assumption that minorities aren’t fit to work in tall buildings, fight fires or fly in airplanes? Paranoid theories that some groups of people were warned ahead of time? Just a poor attempt at trolling? You figure it out.
I don’t know that there has ever been an actual breakdown of the racial demographics of those killed on 9/11. Probably most people would think it a rather bizarre waste of time but there are those for whome everything must go through the prism of race identity before they can relate to it. There’s a webpage at http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm which has profiles and photos of almost all the victims. I guess one could begin there.
PAD, I think we can agree to disagree on this topic.
But first I want to make it clear that I do not support any leader that uses the media to further their individual political goals, nor do I listen or support rap music that degrades women.
That being said I understand your feeling about the source being a less than stellar individual but I would still be offended if he made comments about some East Indian half a world away.
Theres is enough anger and hatred in the world, no one should add to it just for the sake of a joke. I have never listened to IMUS and his current actions do not inspire me to reconsider my current position.
I have traveled all over the country and many places abroad. There is good and bad in every culture. I think its better to focus on the good.
This entire news cluster %uck is a waste of the media and the consumers time.
I doubt that the women that were the source of this joke will ever forget this incident. And that is what is really sad.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
[quote]I never said anything about “dismissing” it. I said that I personally wouldn’t be offended if he snarked at Jews (for instance) because it would be a matter of “consider the source.” And I said that he apologized, repeatedly, and indeed intends to apologize directly to the girls in question, so there comes a point where continuing to howl for his blood becomes out of proportion to the offense. And I further pointed out that if we go with the notion that–as you said–racism in any form is wrong, then Sharpton and Jackson et al might want to think about targeting the sort of songs and culture that fosters and popularizes the characterizing of black women as “bìŧçhëš” and “ho’s.” In other words, if Sharpton and Jackson are setting themselves up as spokesmen for Black America, then they might want to think about tending to their own back yard. Unwritten rule or not, it’s “unacceptable” to assert that demeaning Black women is okay if you’re Black. To say that someone can or cannot be insulting based on their race is itself racist.[/quote]
Here’s a question on the “ho” issue:
Is it acceptable to call someone like Madonna or Anna Nicole Smith a ho? In other words, if the woman in question is in fact a ho, is it acceptable to call her a ho?
Den–
No. However, calling them a rake is acceptable.
I’m all for encouraging preachers to “crack open their bibles” over these sorts of issues.
But the line,
“To err is human: to forgive, divine”
actually comes from Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Criticism” and not the bible.
It’s not that I want to be pedantic, but I needed to say that you should be sure of your sources when you use them to make a point like this (about which I agree wholeheartedly).
I’m starting to form a response to this whole event…and it sorta comes out this way…
To everyone that’s calling for Imus’ head…Cowboy up. And I really, really hate the phrase, because 1) it’s just plain stupid, and 2) it’s been overused.
But it really applies here. What did Imus say? Really? He made a joke in poor taste, and offended someone. When it comes down to it, at the end of every joke, isn’t there someone saying “hey, that’s not funny…because that happened to me.” Shortly after I started college, I learned that a friend had died in a skydiving accident. Ever since, jokes about skydiving haven’t been funny to me. People that know me well know I’m sensitive about it, and try not to tell jokes around me. But I hardly expect the world to stop telling skydiving jokes because I’m sensitive to them.
So Imus offended some people. Big deal. Imus words’ aren’t going to put any shackles back on people. They aren’t going to bring back “coloreds to back of the bus” signs. Is Imus a racist? Hëll, I don’t know, and I don’t really care. Was his comment racist? Sure it was.
But look at what he did…he accepted his suspension, he met with the most vocal opponenet of his comment, and he offerred to meet face to face those individuals he directly offended. He said he’s sorry, he’ll take his punishment. This should be a dead story, and it should also be looked at as an example of what to do when you say something stupid…admit it, accept responsibility, face those you offended, apologize, and move on.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 11, 2007 11:52 AM
This should be a dead story, and it should also be looked at as an example of what to do when you say something stupid…admit it, accept responsibility, face those you offended, apologize, and move on.
Moreover, this should be looked at as an example of what NOT to do when someone says something ridiculous to get attention. Again, I reiterate: you wanna hurt Imus, you ignore him.
Imus is going to meet with the team and take his lumps. If they accept the personal apology and get off their chest what needs to be said and he takes it, what more needs to be done?
I don’t recall the Rutgers team calling for Sharpton or Jackson to champion their cause… those glory seekers elected themselves.
But you know… I would almost pay to see this: If the feeding frenzy doesn’t calm down, Imus should just go on TV and say this: “Look, I know I said something offensive and I’ve apologized for it. The affected individuals have accepted my apology. However, certain people are still calling for me to be fired… well you know what… I quit. I’ve been in this business a long time and I’ve made my money, and I don’t have to put up with this.” Then the TV fades to the Off the Air signal.
That would be priceless….
Then he could go to Satellite Radio.
“Then he could go to Satellite Radio.”
Hah. I didn’t see the good of GSes point until this.
But, really, why quit at all? From what I can tell, people like Sharpton and Jackson don’t just want equality, they want superiority. I’ve heard some from the hip hop culture try to epxlain how it’s different when a rap artist puts a song out about hos and thugs and ridin’ dirty, and how when a white guy uses the exact same language it’s racist. But the only thing racist about that view is that it tries to make it ok for a black to say something that it’s not okay for a white to say. Isn’t that the definition of racism, when there are two standards applied based on nothing more than skin color?
If Imus’ audience decides they’ve had enough of him, they’ll stop tuning in, and eventually he’ll get canned. But can him because he says something that offended someone? Heck, on second thought, maybe they should…because there’s been plenty of things all kinds of people have said that I’ve found offensive…politicians, bosses, ex-girlfriends…ok, maybe not that last group, but you get the picture.
People need to get thick skins. After all,it wasn’t language and words that enslaved African blacks…it was guns and chains and people that did that. Words only hurt if you let them.
A great, great man once said, “I SAY what you only dare to think!” Don Imus falls into this category. He has the guts and the courage of his convictions to speak the truth as he sees it.
Truth is there are OVER 700 references to “Ho’s” and “Nappy” in RAP songs out there right now! So, it’s OK for colored people to call themselves this but not for Caucasians? Is this not a double-standard, folks?
I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be dámņëd to Hëll every moment of his miserable afterlife.
Stick to basketball, Rutgers girls, I’m sure you will make millions at it. But leave Imus alone.
I’m willing to bet though, that if Imus signed a deal to go over to Sirius, Sharpton would still go on the air to get him fired from that deal.
Here’s a question on the “ho” issue:
Is it acceptable to call someone like Madonna or Anna Nicole Smith a ho? In other words, if the woman in question is in fact a ho, is it acceptable to call her a ho?
************
SER: “Ho” is short for “whørë,” which implies that someone has sex for money. Some might argue that Smith did but there’s no evidence that Madonna has.
Ultimately, though, as far as a real libel case goes, Madonna would be hard-pressed to prove damage to her reputation if someone called her a “ho.” Now, Hillary Clinton, for instance, would have a case.
************
The important thing to remember, though, is that no rap song has ever targeted a specific person.
It’s to your credit that you don’t know enough about rap to know that this is untrue. Actually, there are many rap songs that specifically single out other rappers, ex-wives, managers, etc. Then the offended party spends 3 minutes coming up with rhymes for “çøçkšûçkër”, steals a riff from some 80s band and sells their reply. Repeat. Rinse.
***************
SER: I actually was aware of that but thanks for pointing it out — I always viewed that as the rap version the “wrestling feuds.” Granted, Tupac and Biggie Smalls might argue that it’s definitely more “real” than wrestling, but on the whole, a great deal of that is “fixed” for the sake of an audience. It’s still pretty crummy — much like when Eminem went after his ex-wife but again, I view public figures attacking other public figures as different from picking on kids.
How about calling you a whørë? I work for someone — don’t you?
Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?
I never said only whites died on 9-11.
The Sean Bell, Katrina, some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, Shoshana Johnson’s capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch — they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America.
“Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?”
I’m not following you…are you saying we should fire someone that makes a mistake and apologizes for it? Are we living in a society where we have to be free from mistakes, we have to be perfect, in order to keep our jobs?
Posted by: Mike at April 11, 2007 02:00 PM
Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?
You royally offended our host. It was something you should have known better than to do. You said you were wrong and you were sorry. Yet you continue to avail yourself of this forum. Why do you reserve for yourself a privilege you would deny to Imus?
How about calling you a whørë? I work for someone — don’t you?
I don’t know what your job is, but I don’t have sex with my employer.
And that’s why you haven’t gotten that raise, Den…
All this press for Imus’ comments, but we have a nationwide media blackout on the story of what happened to Channon Christian and Chris Newsom. Google their names and you’ll see why the mainstream media is working hard to keep what happened to them out of the national spotlight. It’s an incredible, disturbing story that would be a major nationwide story if there was any justice in this world.
“… and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be dámņëd to Hëll every moment of his miserable afterlife.”
Dude, you got the wrong B.A.
Bigots Anonymous is down the hall, second door on the right.
We’re Battlestar Addicts.
Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Roger B. Taney at April 11, 2007 01:18 PM
I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be dámņëd to Hëll every moment of his miserable afterlife.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, it appears that thinking isn’t your strong suit. You may want to take up a hobby for which you are better suited, like sitting in a rickety old rocking chair, complaining about “revenoors” and drooling a lot.
Posted by: Roger B. Taney at April 11, 2007 01:18 PM
I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be dámņëd to Hëll every moment of his miserable afterlife.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, it appears that thinking isn’t your strong suit. You may want to take up a hobby for which you are better suited, like sitting in a rickety old rocking chair, complaining about “revenoors” and drooling a lot.
Peter can ask me to return the millions of dollars he’s paid me anytime he pleases, which, if you need to hear it, comes to $0.
If he took money for riduculing college girls based on his low expectations of their ethnicity and gender — sure. His broadcasting career establishes his pattern. He should leave because his salary is fruit of a poisonous tree. And if Reverend Al has to slap the apple out of Imus’s hand, good for Reverend Al.
Oh. I take it then you consider the first 5 years of “Cheers” a prostitution comedy. Like me, you must wonder what the big obstacle is to legalizing prostitution.
Bill Myers wrote: “Media portrayals of blacks were largely limited to destructive stereotypes like Amos ‘n Andy.”
Just for the record, according to radio historian Elizabeth McLeod, Amos and Andy, as originally aired on radio from 1928-1943, was a character-driven serial. That was the Amos and Andy that was so popular that movie theaters would stop the film so the radio show could be piped in.
In later years, the characters became more exaggerated and the show turned into a broadly-played sitcom. It’s that later version (and/or the TV version which followed) that drew criticism.
On her website http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/aa.html
McLeod writes of the characters as portrayed in those early years of the serial:
“Central to the program was the tension between the lead characters. Amos stood as an “Everyman” figure: a sympathetic, occasionally heroic individual who combined practical intelligence and a grittydetermination to succeed with deep compassion — along with a caustic sense of humor and a tendency to repress his anger until it suddenly exploded. Andy, by contrast, was a pretentious braggart — obsessed with the symbols of success but unwilling to put forth the effort required to earn them.”
McLeod recently published a book about the show’s history called The Original Amos ‘N Andy, which I need to buy one day. For years she’s been writing about the show and issues surrounding it on an E-Mail OTR Digest, a forum dedicated to old-time radio. They were fascinating tidbits of information.
One thing I learned is that almost all of those early broadcasts no longer exist, except in script form. No doubt that partially explains why most people aren’t familiar with anything other than the sitcom version.
Would it have been better if Black actors had portrayed the characters on radio (as they later did on TV)? Without a doubt. When you have a character of a particular race, you should make it the part available to an actor of that race to begin with. Although in radio, no one can see what the character looks like (except in his or her mind’s eye).
In a perfect world, there would have been actors of all races in radio, and playing parts best suited for their vocal skills, regardless of the actor’s race. For example, say you need both Scottish and French characters for your small cast radio show, and the best actor to handle both accents (and also sound like entirely different people) is Black? Hire him.
For the record, McLeod also addressed the fact that the Amos and Andy actors were White on her website (and no doubt in more detail in the book). However, they weren’t trying to create (or play upon) stereotypes to get cheap laughs:
“Correll and Gosden were fascinated by human nature, and their approach to both comedy and drama drew from their observations of the traits and motivations that drive the actions of all people: while often overlapping popular stereotypes of African-Americans, there was at the same time a universality to their characters which transcended race.”
Rick
Where is all the outrage against Chappelle and Mencia and South Park? Whether it’s a news/humor hybrid like morning radio, or an over-the-top skit show, it’s STILL a matter of using offensive language for entertainment.
How is Imus worse? Imus’s audience is older people. But Comedy Central speaks to young people who are still determining their perceptions on race and racism.
Personally, I’m getting a little tired of minorities portraying white men as either dorks or squares. Sure, I have laughed at this going back to Richard Pryor. But it’s wearing thin and it’s hard to quiet one side when the other gets free rein.
I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be dámņëd to Hëll every moment of his miserable afterlife.
Someone should tell Roger B. Taney there’s a nut posting under his name.
Although I would have to agree that it’s strange to hear anger from “those Lincoln freed”. Hëll, if I make it to 143 I’m going to be dámņëd grateful!
The Sean Bell, Katrina, some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, Shoshana Johnson’s capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch — they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America.
Well I’m all for attacking Hurricane Katrina with everything we’ve got. Though since Whites died at disproportionately high rates from the Hurricane maybe that wasn’t such a great example. Facts, they really are pains in the ášš, aren’t they?
It would also be nice if you specified who the “some missing black girl” was. There are more than one and, if one is complaining about how blacks are ignored, it might be, um, well, at least consistent to put in the minimal effort to give the child a name. Were you referring to Alexis Patterson from Milwaukee? One reason why here story did not resonate with most Americans Black or White was her unfortunate home life–it was easy to assume that she was the victim of her stepfather’s criminal past (including drugs and driving a getaway car in a robbery where a cop was killed). Not a family that most peope will find much in common with. Not that this lessens the tragedy; the child is not responsible for the misdeeds of others. (And nothing has turned up that would lend credence to the stepfather being involved.)
I might add that in my little hometown a young woman(Julie Michelle Bullard) was kidnapped in front of people, vanished, and later turned up dead. Nobody has been charged with the crime. A guy killed himself a few days after her kidnapping when pulled over by the cops. No link has ever been established. She was white. It’s a hëll of a story. As far as I know it hasn’t made much of a stir beyond Sanford. I don’t see anyone claiming that it proves that Southern lives are worth less than Northern ones though.
(special note to the guy claiming to be Roger B. Taney–don’t come! You wouldn’t like it here! Lots of Black folks and Latinos! Uppity ones too, the kind that are liable to give major back talk to a racist old cracker! Save yourself the heartache and stay wherever the hëll you are!)
1) It’s never appropriate to cal someone a ‘ho.’ It’s a term meant to put people down, and that’s never right. Even to actual prostitutes.
2) There is no connection whatsover between a white broadcaster and a black rapper using the N word. I’m sorry if some of you feel opressed by not being able to use it, or other such terms. But there is a huge difference in context between when a black rapper uses it and when a white guy. Rappers are talking inside and about there own subculture. You might disapprove of the way they talk — I certainly do — but it is completely different when a white man uses a phrase like that, which has been used by whites they way it has for so long, and it would be nice if people were sentive to the feelings of blacks on these issues, I think they earned it. Al Sharpton should be criticized, because if blacks(or anybody else) want others to respect their sensitivity, and they should, then it is wrong to use that sensitivity insincerely and in an affected way as a cheep political tool.
It is true that blacks were oppressed by chains not words, but do not discount the power of words. it was words that created the racist society that most of us (except Roger B. Taney) reject today. As a Lawyer, Bob Alfred, you should be aware of that. This does not mean that freedom of speech should be curtailed. nobody is saying that. But when someone uses language in order to oppress and put down — white or black — than other people should use words to speak up against him before the words create a society that forges chains that really enslave people.
3) It is also wrong to make fun of the people of Khazakstan. Sasha Baron Cohen used their country as a generic backward country to which he attached many generic stereotypes, because he thought they are too distant to be aware of it. It was like talking about martians. But apparently they are aware of it, and they are offended, so you should respect their feelings.
I agree that people should be more thick skinned; and I don’t believe that any offensive slip of the tongue should result in a whole festival of contrition; and it’s okey to make fun of stereotypes and such; and I object to people being insincerely over-sensitive in order to score political points, but some things are more hurtful than others, and people should at least try to be sensitive. rejecting PC does not mean going to the other extreme. If PC should be rejected it is because it has become a fetish, the words became more important than the issues.
I think this post needs repeating.
Posted by: Marcus at April 11, 2007 01:49 AM:
“I need to respond to some the comments being made here. As a Black man, I took some offense to Imus’ comments about the Basketball team, but it wasn’t the end of the world. However, when I found out about Imus referring to Gwen Ifil, a Black woman and a White House correspondent at the time, as a “cleaning lady,” and accomplished writer William Rhoden of the New York Times as a “qouta hire,” I began to feel like the firestorm was warranted. These comments are hurtful because it reinoforces the feeling that no matter how much you accomplish, how much success you obtain, in the eyes of far too many, you’re still (please pardon the expression, I hate it myself) “just a ņìggër.” I think that given his history with statements of this sort, it is beyond time for people to show that they are not alright with he and his cohorts saying these things. I am not in the camp that thinks he should be fired, but I think that the two week suspension and accompanying critism is just right.”
Even before I reply to this: you only counter ¼ of my examples — and that’s a basis for you to generalize me as fact-challenged? How does the remaining ¾ not indict you three-fold for making that generalization?
60% of the population of the Katrina-affected area was black — barely qualifying for having its votes flushed in Florida 2000 by the Secretary-of-State/Bush-2000-campaign-manager. Michael Brown must be glad you don’t disagree he did a heck of a job.
Maybe she had the misfortune of going missing the same time the runaway bride was “kidnapped” by Hispanics.
This discussion is to serious to allow it to be dragged down by he who must not be named.
Well, MSNBC has pulled the plug on their Imus TV simulcast.
I’ve been following the discussion on here, and on ESPN’s Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, where I first learned about it. I didn’t end up having the time to respond yesterday, though I did google to confirm some of what I’d heard about the history of Imus’ show.
I don’t know that I’m certain that one instance, even of such a both racist and sexist nature, should have been enough to result in Imus’ firing (or, so far, losing his extra format). However, his case is not helped at all by his history.
As Marcus first introduced to this thread, Imus did call PBS/former NBC journalist Gwen Ifill “a cleaning lady” and dismiss New York Times journalist William Rhoden as “a quota hire”, as cited by the National Association of Black Journalists when they called for the firing of Imus last week. (They appear to have been a little lost in the spectacle power of Sharpton and Jackson.) He’s also quoted as calling Barak Obama “that colored fellow”, though I haven’t seen more specifics on that event yet, and mocked Maya Angelou.
It really doesn’t help his case that he keeps employing Sid Rosenberg, either. In 2001, Rosenberg said that he told a friend hoping to see Venus and Serena Williams in Playboy “You’ve got a better shot at National Geographic.” He was fired, but re-hired after apologizing. Rosenberg was fired again two years ago for making offensive remarks about Kylie Minogue, regarding her battle with breast cancer. (I haven’t yet turned up the specific quote from this incident.) But, while no longer producer, he’s back with the show again, contributing “It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors,” to this latest disaster. The pattern of what Imus has both said and allowed – and enabled, with re-hirings – doesn’t aid greatly in trying to persuade a corporation to keep paying and airing him.
Oh, and as far as “honky” and “cracker” go – honestly, I can’t imagine feeling anything but the urge to laugh if I was ever called either of those, by anyone of any group. Those words simply don’t have the same power as those of slurs against other groups, perhaps because they’re applied to a group that hasn’t often been the oppressed.
Clarify. Why is it better for a white guy to use a racist, sexist slur against black women? Yes, rap is not exactly the most respectful thing to anyone, but it’s also different enough that bringing it up in the context of what Don Imus did to *excuse* him is stupid.
“… but it’s also different enough that bringing it up in the context of what Don Imus did to *excuse* him is stupid.”
It’s not being brought up to excuse him. It’s been stated over and over again that what he said was dumb as a brick and wrong on so many levels. It’s just that double standards and hypocrisy are also being pointed out. If you wanna talk about race issues, then you talk in full, warts and all, about race issues. If you wanna play “attack whitey” all day, Rev. Al supports your efforts.
“It’s just that double standards and hypocrisy are also being pointed out.”
There is no double standard or hypocracy when blacks use words that were used by whites against blacks inside their own black culture. The context and intention are significantly different. There might be a reason to criticize rappers for using such language, but not on using a double standard.
There is a double standard that black males use slurs against women or whites or homosexuals etc. while opposing racial slurs being used by whites against them.
I’ve just googled the names “Channon Christian and Chris Newsom” as someone suggested, and it really is shocking stuff (basically four black men raped, tortured, and killed a white couple).
I have no doubt that, if the races of the involved were reversed, the media would likely give a more extensive and very different coverage of it.
Reading some of the comments in the blogs carrying the story, the amount of racism is frightening (people calling for genocide against blacks, Jesus). Maybe the media is right in not milking this story?
But I dunno… maybe more attention should be paid to the hostility that some blacks have against all whites and how this can be as noxious as the hostility some whites have for all blacks. Denial never helps.
When a white commits a race crime or advocates racist ideas, he is rightfully labelled a racist, a Nazi, and I think this is benefitial to whites as a whole. Because it paints the offender as an individual, something separate and not representative of all whites. He is a “Nazi”, he isn’t all whites.
With blacks it’s the opposite. Blacks making offensive comments about whites are many times excused, the black person isn’t called on it s harshly, “they have been oppressed and have a right to fight back,” many seem to think. But this political correctness backfires somewhat. Because the person then gains a sort of legitimacy as a genuine representative of black people.
There isn’t a term equivalent to “Nazi” for blacks, something to make them separate and distint from blacks in general who don’t hate whites.
And then, when some blacks commit a hideous crime like the one I mentioned above, many misguided people blame everyone that has dark skin. Political correctness, by not allowing individual blacks to be criticized for appalling behavour, makes it so that a black man that commits a crime against a white is seen as representing all blacks.
And this is a very dangerous thing.
And that’s why you haven’t gotten that raise, Den
Crap.
And they said it was a budget issue.
Well said Rene.
“There is no double standard or hypocracy when blacks use words that were used by whites against blacks inside their own black culture.”
I disagree. If you claim that a word is wrong, hurtful, unimaginably harmful and most not be used, then you do not turn around and use it yourself. You certainly don’t claim that it’s ok when you use it because when you use it it’s meaningless and harmless. That’s stupidity and hypocracy.
I pointed out in another thread (it may even have been on Myers’s blog) that I had a large number of Jewish friends and coworkers when I lived in Florida. The word “kike” was offensive to them. They didn’t like it used at or around them. Thing is, they wouldn’t playfully walk up to and address each other by that word or asking questions like, “what’s up my Kìkëš?” The word was off limits. The word was treated as something that was wrong to use AT ALL. I can respect that and them.
Many blacks who decry the use of the ņìggër by non-blacks will use it themselves. Many who claim to be offended by Imus or others will sometimes use the word in almost every sentence they utter and use that word to address other blacks. The word and its ability to offend is treated as a game to be played whenever there’s something to be gained by someone. That act in and of itself removes any real meaning and power from it.
It’s made even more powerless when the same people who claim that it can’t be uttered use it in public or around you and others all the time. How can you claim that someone else’s utterance of a word that you have used times to numerous to count around them is offensive or wrong just because they’re saying it rather then you? If the word is so powerful and hurtful, then knock off using it yourself.
Me? I won’t use those words (outside clinical discussions on racial epitaphs)or others that are directed at others. I treat them as though they are offensive and have power. But anybody who uses a word themselves or excuses another who uses it because it doesn’t mean anything is a hypocrite if they then claim that the word is the be all and end all of hurtful words.
Well, MSNBC just decided to cut him lose.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17999196/?GT1=9246
Even before I reply to this: you only counter ¼ of my examples — and that’s a basis for you to generalize me as fact-challenged? How does the remaining ¾ not indict you three-fold for making that generalization?
Actually, I also remarked, at length, on what I think might be the “some missing black girl” example. That would be 2/4 which would indict us equally if you use your logic and/or are insane. I have absolutely no idea how you could have missed it but having done so does add a chuckle or two at your complaining about being portrayed as factually challenged.
And, for the record I simply pointed out that Katrina was a poor example to support your argument, since the facts don’t, to my thinking, support it. That is not quite the same as saying that you are, as a general rule, fact challenged. If you treat every single argument as something you must win or be forever labeled as some kind of loser you are going to end up going to ridiculous lengths to support your points long after it has become obvious that…oh. Right.
60% of the population of the Katrina-affected area was black — barely qualifying for having its votes flushed in Florida 2000 by the Secretary-of-State/Bush-2000-campaign-manager. Michael Brown must be glad you don’t disagree he did a heck of a job.
60% of the population. But only 50% of the victims. Whites–around 28% of the population but 42% of the victims. So, I would submit, a poor example for your argument. As for my agreeing that Michael Brown did a heck of a job…strangely, unlike the stuff I wrote about Alexis Patterson–the stuff you missed–I see nothing whatsoever in my comments about Mr Brown or whether or not he did a heck of a job. All things considered, calling you fact-challenged at this point would be an act of kindness.
You may have the last word on the matter, if you wish. Bored now.
I’ve just googled the names “Channon Christian and Chris Newsom” as someone suggested, and it really is shocking stuff (basically four black men raped, tortured, and killed a white couple).
I have no doubt that, if the races of the involved were reversed, the media would likely give a more extensive and very different coverage of it.
It may be tempting to agree, especially after the lack of attention to the “Wichita Horror” (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/index.html) but it’s impossible to say for sure. A lot depends on what else is happening or if it gets captured on film or if some particular aspect of it just happens to hit the zeitgeist. Millions of animals die every second but we drop everything to see what happens to two particular whales trapped in ice. Why? Who knows? And it isn’t something the media can always control. If they could they would every day but most of the stories they flog–heard about the big news regarding Kirsten Dunst and pot???–vanish into the ether.
You have absolutely no idea how I could have missed it because you apparently don’t understand that you didn’t cite the missing black girl in generalizing me as fact challenged.
One questioned fact warrants the reply “Facts, they really are pains in the ášš, aren’t they?” That seems wrong everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
It’s so obvious, you can’t say what that obvious thing is.
So I’m not credible because I have no resolve to be wrong? Again, that seems wrong everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
I never denied whites suffered disproportionately from Katrina. I said less is done on behalf of black distress than white. The fact that whites in a black-majority area suffered disproportionately from Katrina is not incompatible with my point.
Actually, now that my belly is full with dinner, I’m glad this issue was brought up, so that I may ask a a question. In order to insist that the protest does not match the true distress caused, you must disregard the distress presented: who should decide whether anyone’s distress is legitimate or not?
Consider what has transpired here in recent months:
In contrast to this:
It’s also convenient Jerry brought up his “kike is an offensive term” post:
You see, I have never denied offending anyone — because, as Goethe said, optical illusion is optical truth. It’s the perception of the offended that makes the offense authentic.
The reason I’m often not sorry is because, again, as far as I don’t take orders from anyone who doesn’t pay my wage, I don’t agree to being held by acountable to a hidden agenda I’m not privy to. Bill Mulligan once sort’ve casually tried to establish a boundary along the line of “no one’s kid was fair game” — to which I replied I would’ve thought he was someone kid — and he never referred to the attempt to establish that boundary again.
However, I’ve never, ever characterized anyone’s reaction to what I’ve said as spazzing out or denied that I’ve offended — because I simply don’t comprehend arbitrarily denying what another person says is going on in his or her head.
Isn’t the foundation of sociopathy the disredard for other people’s boundaries and feelings? When black people tell you that what Imus said was severe — and, while continuing to indulge in all of his wealth and privilege, Imus admits he was wrong — who are any of you to say black people aren’t experiencing the distress they say they are experiencing, that your word is the true account of a racism you aren’t experiencing? Does food nourish anyone other than the person enjoying it? Will anyone die from anyone else’s poisoning?
I’ve been lurking on this thread for a while and, as a 36-year old black man, figure I’d pitch me 2 cents into the bucket. First, though, we have to define ‘racism’ – it’s not just the dilineation between white and black, or even saying one race can do things that another can’t. Racism is the systematic dehumanization of an entire race of people based on the belief that one race is superior to another. You don’t even need to go back to slavery, racism was part of American LAW until the 60’s, well into the lives of my parents. There is no other group in America (except aguably Native Americans) that has suffered with the same width and severity as black people have. Still, like everyone else we just want to live our lives, do our jobs, and love our families without having to think about that stuff, but it always seems to pop up.
When a white person uses racial slurs against a black person, it carries some of the weight of the past and can’t really be seen as anything other than a threat. By contrast, when a black person uses the same word, as much as I hate the practice, they’re not using it as a insult – it wouldn’t carry the same impact even if they did. It’s NEVER been about the word, it’s about the intention behind it.
I don’t know if Al Sharpton was elected spokesman for black people everywhere in some vote that I didn’t get an invite to, but I know that none of the rappers that have been discussed have gotten the job either.
Frankly, I agree that it’s gone on too long, he’s apoligized, I’ll continue to think he’s an ášš. But if nobody made a stink, how would he know what he did was unacceptible?
I’d much rather be talking about ‘Lost’ right now.
Posted by: Troy Phillips at April 12, 2007 01:39 AM
It’s NEVER been about the word, it’s about the intention behind it.
Agreed.
And as I’ve said in prior posts, I believe it is impossible for a white person to understand the emotional impact of such an insult on a black person. And it is equally impossible for one who has not suffered from mental illness to understand my experience with depression. Or for a heterosexual like me to understand the torment experienced by homosexuals. Or for a man like me to understand what it is like for a woman who is constantly viewed as inferior to men despite her abilities. I could go on and on.
See the danger here? Playing “my pain is bigger than your pain” can lead to no good end, because there is no shortage of groups that can claim to have suffered some form of systematic oppression.
I agree that it is a good thing that Imus suffered a backlash. It shows that society is recognizing that racism is not okay. On the other hand, I believe a good deal of the outrage was manufactured by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom hide their personal agendas behind political ones.
Ultimately, MSNBC’s decision to drop Imus’ show troubles me. Not because I think it’s any great loss — Imus is a jáçkášš. But I’d rather that ratings determine who is or isn’t on the air, because once you’ve begun to draw lines based on the idea that “this or that idea is dangerous” you cross over into dangerous territory. Where does it stop?
Think of it this way: the civil rights movement of the 60s benefited what was then the relatively new medium of television. Images of peaceful black protestors being battered with water cannons, beaten by police officers, and mauled by police dogs were piped into everyone’s homes. The white majority was forced grapple with their conscience, and this provoked important societal changes.
Imagine, however, what could have happened if those images and stories had been censored or suppressed. The civil rights movement could have had a much different — and less positive — outcome.
Posted by: Troy Phillips at April 12, 2007 01:39 AM
I’d much rather be talking about ‘Lost’ right now.
I understand. I’d rather be talking about anything other than Imus, who is an unrepentant šhìŧ-hëád. On the other hand, as much as I’d guess that black people probably grow weary of their race being an issue, I think it’s important for us to discuss our thoughts and feelings on the subject. Honest communication helps promote understanding.
Whoops. The first sentence in the sixth paragraph of my prior post should’ve read, “Think of it this way: the civil rights movement of the 60s benefited FROM what was then the relatively new medium of television.”
Rob Brown posted: For me, the word “ho” (which is used all the time) isn’t offensive at all, but I can see how the description of them as “nappy-headed” might irk people other than Sharpton. “Ho” is just a pejorative, sometimes said jokingly.
Please keep in mind that just because it is in use “all the time” doesn’t mean that it isn’t offensive. For me, as a female, the use of the words “ho” “whørë” “šlûŧ” are just as offensive as some of the other derogatory names used in examples above.
Do I think Imus should be forced to leave his job? Not necessarily, because there will always be someone ready to take his place. However, he should be hit upside the head (metaphorically) with a two-by-four, which is what I think has been happening.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 11, 2007 09:21 PM:
“I disagree. If you claim that a word is wrong, hurtful, unimaginably harmful and most not be used, then you do not turn around and use it yourself. You certainly don’t claim that it’s ok when you use it because when you use it it’s meaningless and harmless. That’s stupidity and hypocracy.”
I think Troy Phillips explained it well above:
“When a white person uses racial slurs against a black person, it carries some of the weight of the past and can’t really be seen as anything other than a threat. By contrast, when a black person uses the same word, as much as I hate the practice, they’re not using it as a insult – it wouldn’t carry the same impact even if they did. It’s NEVER been about the word, it’s about the intention behind it.”
Jerry, I am certain that you, unlike someone who shall remain nameless, know that words don’t have objective meaning, that their meaning changes in with context, and that some are appropriate in one scenario and inappropriate in another. This is one such case.
I’ll give you another. In Israel extreme right wingers might call a left wing Israeli like myself a jew-boy (hebrew equivalent). What they mean is a jew who is weak, a victim. It’s ugly language, which unfortunatly sometimes occurs in Israeli politics (on both sides), and I don’t like it. But if a non-Jew said the same word it would be 10 times more offensive for me, for similar reasons to why Mr. Phillips finds the N word offensive when used by whites.
It is true that Jews don’t go around calling each other kìkëš (although I’ve heard that some young Jews started imitating blacks in that regard, but this is second hand info). However, Jews have repeatedly played on stereotypical images of Jews in books, film, TV and comedy acts. The most famous example being Woody Allen. To a certain point I enjoy this kind of Jewish humor. But I must say that I sometimes get a little tired of those stereotypes — it seems that the only time you see a Jew in popular entertainment is if he’s fitting that stereotype. There are also stereotypes of Israelis, but they are more silly than offensive.
Another good example is this: American comedy often depicts a stereotypical image of the white american male as fat, ignorant, bear guzzling, Homer Simpson type. It’s funny because it is satire by Americans on Americans. But if France were the ones making the Simpson’s, then it would be less funny, even if not nearly as offensive as the N word.
Another related example is that some young Israelis started using the N word in a certain phrase. They don’t understand the offensive historical impact of the word. A certain friend of my family who is half Jewish-American and half Jewish-Ethiopian was offended by this and tried to explain to these kids why it was inappropriate.
“Many who claim to be offended by Imus or others will sometimes use the word in almost every sentence they utter and use that word to address other blacks. The word and its ability to offend is treated as a game to be played whenever there’s something to be gained by someone. That act in and of itself removes any real meaning and power from it.”
I personaly feel that blacks are wrong to use that word, because it locks them into a certain image of themselves. But, it is their game to play, not ours. If blacks are sincerely offended by the word when used by whites — like some on this thread have stated — than we should respect it. On their hand we should reject those who try to score points by insincerely (or stupidly) accusing whites of racism or antisemitism or something else. I think normal people can tell the difference, just as they can tell the difference between a real racist and well meaning people like us who simply have an honest difference of opinion about the use of the N word.
Like Bill Myers said: “Honest communication helps promote understanding.”