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
• 
Sucks that Porctor and Gamble makes so many products, makes it harder to shop and boycott their products….
Some of the companies that pulled their ads are no big deal, I never did business with them anyway…
Freedom of speech is an illusion when Corporate America controls the airwaves and gets to pick and choose what everyone can hear…
Posted by: Mike at April 11, 2007 11:45 PM:
“Consider what has transpired here in recent months:
Peter informed me that I had offended him.
He did me the courtesy of specifying the boundary I had crossed: he is is the only David who is fair game.
I agreed with the boundary he cited, agreed the authority to manage that boundary was his by citing his perception making the offense authentic, and he had no problem accepting my word crossing his boundary was not my intent.”
I think most people would have known that behavior was inappropriate to begin with. Most people would have not wanted to insult anybody to begin with, instead of deliberatly offending someone and then appologizing for crossing a boundary. Most people would have appologized profusly for hurting the feelings of our host accidently rather than for being unaware of an offioial boundary set by a host confident enough to allow people to insult him. And they would not have said that they recognize our host’s authority to set boundaries, and thankinghim for explaining these boundaries, but would have regreted sincerely the accidental crossing of an obvious boundary of bad taste.
Bill Myers is right that honest communication helps promote understanding. But a certain level of mutual respect and empathy are also necessary.
A few observations:
Who appointed Al Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) spokespersons of African-Americans? To a surprisingly large extent I would say it is the (white) media. Whenever something racially sensitive comes up, it is an easy bet that what Sharpton has to say will be in the news. And part of the reason for that is that people like him make an easy target for ad personam attacks that frequently are used as a shortcut to discredit the opposition without addressing the issues. A not entirely dissimilar happened a few years ago when a lot of the media treated Michael Moore as the face of opposition to the Iraq war and the Bush administration to the exclusion of pretty much everybody else.
On the other hand, Sharpton does in this case voice concerns/objections that are apparently by many others, which is why the matter is not dismissed with a resigned “It’s just Imus.” Otherwise one could equally say: “It’s just Sharpton, no need to get excited.” But people are still getting excited, and it is not because they are unthinking Sharpton dittoheads. What is interesting however is how many of Imus’s defenders exert themselves rationalizing and excusing his statement(s), are ready to take his “apology” at face value, while assuming that Imus’s critics are either pursuing some (sinister) agenda or are stooges being used by those agenda-pursuers. So they assume the best of Imus and the worst of his critics.
Another interesting thing is how Sharpton not criticizing rappers *enough* apparently means that he approves of them and how some people seem to infer that rap and hip-hop songs are reprensentative of the way all blacks (or at least all black men) think and speak. Which is a bit like saying that hardcore pornography is representative of the way white men think and speak. (Both rap and pørņ are extremely lucrative industries with large audiences which are however frowned upon in polite society and exist in a sub-culture outside the mainstream).
And look at it this way: Al Sharpton does not have to convince middle-class white folk to dislike rappers etc., for the most part they already despise them. Imus is a rather different case, lots of respected people (who would not dream of appearing in a controversial rapper’s video) have appeared as guests on his show, which is aired by major networks and endorsed by all sorts of commercial sponsors. And as the defensive reactions of quite a few people have shown, a large part of the news media establishment does seem to treat him as a colleague or equal, not as a ludicrous shock jock they look down on…
What do you base that belief on?
You seem to be wondering if there should be a limit to ratings determining what’s on the air. Decapitations have been presented as gathering substantial ratings in the Middle East.
And when most people eat, does that fill my belly? What do “most people” have to do with anything?
And, if you want to get into existential detail, I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter’s boundary that only he is fair game. From his chastisement, I’m pretty sure if I keep my ridicule of Peter as making sense regardless of his responsibilities to real people, I can avoid the specific existential boundary he means to cite. That suits me fine, and I have no problem confirming the offense he had taken was authentic.
And, quite frankly, who are you that your reservation against the boundary Peter has drawn, that he is fair game, should interfere in the interaction of consenting adults?
I have to agree with Bill Myers that the decision by MSNBC to let Imus go is troubling on at least one level. Like Bill, I never really cared for Imus’ show, but I do find it toubling that a small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air. I mean, if Imus doesn’t have the right to be an ášš, do we truly have freedom of speech in this country. Yes, I’m aware that the first amendment only applies to government actions (too bad the FCC seems to be above it) and his critics have the right to protest Imus as he does to be offensive in the first place. Still, I don’t like the slippery slope that this leads to.
I was watching Keith Olberman last night and he went through a litany of offensive remarks made by a variety of other TV/radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jeff Beck, etc. He then put Al Sharpton on and essentially asked him if he was going to go after these others. Sharpton replied that his group will be monitoring all of these people.
As despicable as I find Limbaugh, Coulter, Bect, Hannity, etc, the idea of Al Sharpton targeting anyone he doesn’t like for removal from the air chills me.
MSNBC decided that they didn’t want to be associated with Imus anyone. That is their right, but the manner in which they were backed into that decision makes me wince.
Troy, you make some very good points, and I for one very much appreciate your comment. Many people…like Snoop Dogg, for one, have stated that’s it’s different when a word comes from a white man as opposed from a black man to another black man. They way Snoop and others ahve stated it, it doesn’t make sense.
The way Troy states it, however, does. It’s not enough that it sounds different coming from a white man…it’s that many in the black community see it as a threat when a white man starts using certain words.
I don’t agree with that, but I understand it better now. I don’t agree with it because I don’t think you can universally state that every time a white man uses some word that’s considered off-limits that they mean it as a threat. I don’t really know what Imus’ personal views are, and given that he’s a shock jock, I don’t think it’s fair to impute any personal feeling to his words. He says things to shock, because a goodly number of people find that entertaining.
Words only carry the meanings we give them. And the danger that I see in giving a word used by a certain race…aside from the irony in that such an action is itself racist and discriminatory…is that there will always be a risk that an innocent will be judged guilty simply because they used a word.
In Imus’ case, this is probably a right decision for a wrong reason. I dislike shock jocks. I don’t listen to any of their shows. I’m usually pretty happy when their shows go off the air, because I don’t see what’s so entertaining about making jokes about the misfortune of others. But let’s face it…Imus has said worse things…about blacks and other groups…in the past. This comment was pretty innocent compared to his past. Why fire him now? I don’t think we’re any more sensitive, or wise. I think we’re more media aware, and media manipulated. The news carried this event, made it a bigger story than it warranted, and the public devoured it. Imus is getting canned because he’s an ugly old white guy who said an unfortunate thing, and he’s made millions of dollar making fun of a lot of people. Anyone that’s ever been offended by him is probably a little happy now.
Which still doesn’t change the fact that the triggering event was a phrase that would seem tame on just about every hip hop and rap album published. You can tell me all day that it’s different in that context, but that’s not the point.
Here it is: If the black community wants the world to understand that certain words are hurtful to it, the first thing it has to do is stop using those words. Period. Humans look to actions to see what behaviour is appropriate. It’s something ingrained in us from our earliest ages. Anyone with kids that’s caught them doing something because they’ve seen their parents doing it knows this. I see it in my son as he tries to copy me washing my hair, or using the TV remote, or driving my car. He listens to what I say…such as “be gentle with the cats.” But when he sees me throwing the cat off the bed because he’s just dug his claws into my foot, then that behaviour becomes acceptable to him.
If these words really were as threatenting and hurtful, if they really do serve as a reminder that just 60 years ago we had laws sanctioning segregation, stop using them. Everyone. Because, if you say that they are threatening, but you still embrace their use internally, then it seems to me that that logical conclusion is that it’s not the words at all that are really the problem.
It’s the people using them.
And, if you really think about it, that’s a much more frightening thought than any I’ve had in a good long while.
And how did they coerce the network? By threatening to generate consensus to withhold support from their sponsors. Is capitalism only the capitalism of white people?
So who’s stopping Imus from being an ášš? I don’t have an MSNBC show — I’d like to hear you deny I’m an ášš.
Except for Morgan Freeman and the black guy who subbed for Rush Limbaugh, when we hear someone denying racism exists, we can count on him not being a black guy.
So here it is, Counselor: the “black community” should relent on the selective offense taken from the same racist behavior, when the “white community” can admit to the same degree as the black there is such a thing as racism.
Otherwise, what cause do you have to deny that the distress felt over the prospect of Imus’s continued privileges isn’t real?
PAD,
I hope you remember me from Dragon*Con 2006. I was the one who came to you about the upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed STAR TREK joint. Having heard Don Imus’ great dis towards the Rutgers Women’s B-Ball team, I’ve begun to understand what you told me about timing. Imus has always been a maverick, but this time he really stepped in a big pile of dung, particuarlly since they’ve just come from winning their final four. Having raised the ire of both Revs. AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, he’s in it waist deep.
There is such a thing as Freedom of Speech. In the case of Imus, however, this one instance slipped his mind: Just watch what you say, for the whole world is listening. Imus’ great blunder has gotten me to take this to take your advice to heart if ever I ever have any future dealings with the media. This is also a “how not to” media moment to grow on.
Did anybody learn from John Rocker back in 1999 on how NOT to do an commentary?
First, let me correct myself and say that I meant “Glenn Beck”, not “Jeff Beck”. Second, I’ve avoided getting into it with Mike so far because I’ve really lost my taste for flame wars, but, wow, his latest response to me is so idiotic that I have to address it.
Is capitalism only the capitalism of white people?
Where did I say anything that could even be remotely interpreted as agreeing with that statement? Did you just completely miss the part where I said Sharpton and Imus’s other critics have the right to express their disagreement?
So who’s stopping Imus from being an ášš? I don’t have an MSNBC show — I’d like to hear you deny I’m an ášš.
No, you’re doing a perfect job of showing that you are an ášš.
The point is, they’re using coercion to silence Imus and, by example, anyone else who might say something that offends them.
Except for Morgan Freeman and the black guy who subbed for Rush Limbaugh, when we hear someone denying racism exists, we can count on him not being a black guy.
Please point to any statement by me that could possibly be construed as saying that racism doesn’t exist.
Couldn’t find one? No? That’s because I never said anything remotely like that.
So here it is, Counselor: the “black community” should relent on the selective offense taken from the same racist behavior, when the “white community” can admit to the same degree as the black there is such a thing as racism.
Again, did you completely miss my point about them having the same right to express their offense as Imus does to be offensive?
Otherwise, what cause do you have to deny that the distress felt over the prospect of Imus’s continued privileges isn’t real?
Once again, I challenge you to produce a single statement by me that supports this conclusion.
Posted by: Mike at April 12, 2007 08:24 AM
…I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter’s boundary that only he is fair game.
With that, I think you’ve neatly summed up who you are and why it’s not worth wasting time conversing with you, about you, or in any way acknowledging you.
I honestly do wish you well, Mike. But this will be my final response to you, about you, or in any way related to you.
I asked a question in response to your post. I can’t tell from the passage in question and your reply whether the answer is yes or no.
I never said you denied racism existed.
I didn’t say you denied anyone’s freedom of expression.
Again, it’s fortunate for me I didn’t attribute anything to you you didn’t say, because I can turn down your challenge without making my point untrue.
As far as I don’t take orders from you, I don’t agree to being held acountable to a hidden agenda I have no access to.
The passage Bill cited requires the complete context:
Bill Myers –
But I’d rather that ratings determine who is or isn’t on the air,
I wouldn’t be surprised if this move has more to do with the # of advertisers that have quietly but quickly backed away from Imus’ show in the last few days.
Menshevik
Love the handle. 🙂
Den –
Where did I say anything that could even be remotely interpreted as agreeing with that statement?
The major problem with The Nameless One… one of the major problems, for there are several… is that he has his own, backwards interpretation of how the world works that has nothing to do whatsoever with reality as it is generally accepted by rational people.
Point A leads to Point 3, and so forth.
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.
Heh. Too true. I think it’s partly out of some misplaced sense of guilt that the media is all too willing to designate someone of color as “a major figure” when, were he or she White, they would be more willing to ask for some evidence to support the contention.
I’d rather be talking about anything other than Imus, who is an unrepentant šhìŧ-hëád.
The dog-pile quality of this has almost done the impossible–I almost feel sorry for him and actually like the fact that he just came out swinging against Sharpton, asking when he will apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players!
At this point he may need to stop the apologizing and go on the offensive if he has any chance to come back from this. One negative fall out from all this–the lesson learned may be to not admit guilt, not apologize, but instead double down and go on full attack mode. At some point the public may flip…I know that reading Al Sharpton saying “It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves” sends a bigger chill down my spine than anything old prune faced Imus could ever say.
However, Jews have repeatedly played on stereotypical images of Jews in books, film, TV and comedy acts. The most famous example being Woody Allen.
I never got that feeling–to me, Allen was not stereotyping Jews so much as New Yorkers or 98 pound weaklings (at least in his older, funnier movies). And I’ve known more than a few Woody Allen types and I don’t think they were all Jewish. But I’ll have to think on this.
Who appointed Al Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) spokespersons of African-Americans? To a surprisingly large extent I would say it is the (white) media.
Dang, you made the point I was going to, and better than I did. Oh well.
Den–just walk away. Nothing to see here. If you want to have any semblance of a real discussion with Mike you have to do it very early in the thread, before the inevitable breakdown.
Steve Govett, General Manager of the Colorado Mammoth, had a great point this morning on a local radio station:
Where are Sharpton and Jackson now that the charges against the Duke lacrosse players have been dropped?
And while I’m not 100% convinced nothing happened at that party, the (white) DA tried to throw them under the bus for his career.
Sharpton and Jackson did the same by vilifying these kids, and they had the convenience of Duke, a majority white university, being in the middle of Durham, NC, where there are as many African Americans as whites.
I’ve noticed something over the last few days. There seems to be an odd method behind the groupings going on. Some people are saying that various terms are exceedingly offensive, but not if the terms are used by the groups they’re referring to. Now, call me crazy(I know you will anyway) but I don’t usually lump rap artists in with 99 per cent of the black people I know as one continuous group. This said, saying that one relatively small subset taints the entire whole by using these words is, I think, silly. It would be like Den thinking I’m a bad-tempered ášš because Bill O’Reilly is, and I’m another Irishman who works in TV, so I must be a bad-tempered ášš. (The fact that I AM, in fact, doesn’t change the point. I just wanna be called bad-tempered on my OWN merits.) The arguement also goes to the two Reverends speaking on behalf of ALL Black people.
Y’know, my Mikese isn’t up to interpreting what he’s saying. He’s quoting me, but clearly not responding to me. Unless he’s using an invisotext to put the actual quote he IS responding to between my quoted words and his response.
We’ve discussed before our opinions on boycots of offensive or unpopular speech…Dixie Chicks come to mind. I don’t like it, but I certainly don’t begrudge anyone their right to practice it. No one’s suggested that Imus isn’t entitled to practice his brand of entertainment. But his current sponsors certainly don’t see the value in contining to support him, and at least one employer feels the same way. Imus is free to make all the off-color and offensive jokes he wants…he’s just not going to get paid as much, or have as large an audience any more.
Personally, I find that to be an ineffective way to educate somone. Or rather, it’s an effective way to tell someone how to avoid getting into this mess, but it does nothing to advance the causes of equality and respect that MLK was advocating. It doesn’t advance his dream of blacks and white living together in a color-blind world. All it does is show in glaring detail how much more work we have to do.
And I’m not talking about Imus’ actions anymore. Asking for someone to resign or get fired because they called you a name is not tolerance and understanding. Calling for them to be educated, calling for them to come spend time with you so they can understand why what they said was offensive, taking this opportunity to get them to close the gap between cultures just a little more, that’s what you should do. Asking for revenge for something that happened two generations ago isn’t going to solve anything.
Craig, I think the Duke case should be a thread all on its own, so let’s wait until PAD decides to give us his opinion on it. (hint, hint).
I really have nothing else to say to Mike. It’s clear that any attempt at a rational conversation with him is impossible. Just look at his latest response. Note that I made a point of saying that I’d a have a problem with any “small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air.” He then interprets it to somehow mean that I think capitalism belongs only to white people.
I really don’t know how I could have made my statement any clearer. If a white group tried to, say force Al Sharpton off the air for saying something offensive to white people, or if a Christian group tried to force someone off the air for saying something offensive to them, I’d feel equally as uncomfortable with that.
The rest of his latest post is just jibberish as he tries to backtrack and deny that he was putting words in my mouth. I hate it when Bill O’Reilly tries to do it to his guests, so I see no reason to acknowledge it when Mike does it.
Shrouded.
Sean, see PAD’s comments on the other big thread now for a decent response to that line of thinking. I doubt anyone, me specifically, thinks that rap and hip hop speak for all blacks. That’s not the point I’m trying to make.
But it is telling that you don’t see much of folks like Sharpton and Jackson staging a protest of Death Row records trying to get their talent, executives, and marketing people fired because of the rough lyrics found on many of their albums. If you did see this, than the reaction to Imus’ comments would be more warranted.
But you don’t see that. You don’t see prominant black leaders taking the black hip hop and rap community to task for the way they make money. You used to, a long while ago, and maybe they do still. But they don’t call press confrences, and make it a public ordeal, like they have with this.
Sean: Don’t worry, I won’t compar you to Bill O’Reilly.
Just to make sure I’m clear: The other day, when I posted the statement about O’Reilly being a bitter, angry Irishman, that was a direct quote from my Irish sister-in-law, which according the rules on ethnic slurs, that makes it perfectly okay for you her to say it, right?
But it is telling that you don’t see much of folks like Sharpton and Jackson staging a protest of Death Row records trying to get their talent, executives, and marketing people fired because of the rough lyrics found on many of their albums.
Well, would you want to protest at death row records??? It’s the same reason you don’t see too many animal rights activists protesting at a leather biker bar. Throwing blood at a rich old lady wearing a fur is a lot less liklely to result in one’s ášš getting kicked.
Good point, Bill. But, maybe Al Sharpton could protest Death Row Records from the safety of his radio studio.
“I don’t agree with that, but I understand it better now. I don’t agree with it because I don’t think you can universally state that every time a white man uses some word that’s considered off-limits that they mean it as a threat. I don’t really know what Imus’ personal views are, and given that he’s a shock jock, I don’t think it’s fair to impute any personal feeling to his words. He says things to shock, because a goodly number of people find that entertaining.
Words only carry the meanings we give them. And the danger that I see in giving a word used by a certain race…aside from the irony in that such an action is itself racist and discriminatory…is that there will always be a risk that an innocent will be judged guilty simply because they used a word.”
In an ideal world, if a white person said something that a black person found offensive, the black man would point out to the white man the sensitive associations of the word, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not realize them or mean anything bad. The whiteman in turn would sincerely apologize and try to refrain from using the word, but he would not be treated by the black man as a suspect racist. In an ideal world a radio show host that repeatedly used racial slurs would loose his audiences. But this is not an ideal world. However, if we want it to be better we should aspire to respect the sensitivity of blacks on this issue, while they should give us the benefit of the doubt that we are not racist.
“it seems to me that that logical conclusion is that it’s not the words at all that are really the problem.”
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.”
The word has a different meaning when spoken by whites or blacks. Why is it so difficult to accept that. It’s not the word. We often complain in this blog about political correctness. But this is exactly the point. Political correctness made a fetish of the words while ignoring the intentions and context. I don’t know what Imus intentions are. Ordinarily he would deserve the benefit of the doubt, but one of the posts above seems to suggest a pattern with him. Most white people deserve the benefit if the doubt, even when blacks feel they have overstepped somehow. But this has nothing to do with rappers or Chris Rock or one word or another. It’s about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other.
————————
Posted by: Den at April 12, 2007 09:20 AM:
“First, let me correct myself and say that I meant “Glenn Beck”, not “Jeff Beck”.
Yes, I wasn’t sure what you had against a british guitar player.
“Second, I’ve avoided getting into it with Mike so far because I’ve really lost my taste for flame wars, but, wow, his latest response to me is so idiotic that I have to address it.”
Actually this is the time when ignoring him is most warranted.
Micha, it’s not “It’s about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other.” That’s what Sharpton and Jackson want it to be about. What it is about is Imus, and only Imus. He doesn’t represent his whole audience. He probably doesn’t represent even a large portion of his audience very well. If he’s got a track record, then let that be the rallying cry. Not “he said somthing bad, can him.” Instead, say “he’s got a pattern of racially insensitive remarks, and it’s time he said goodbye to his ability to spread such garbage to a wide audience.”
The word has no meaning other than what is given to it. You can’t say that “ho” means something when I use it, and another when Den uses it. You can look at how we both used it, and try and decide what we meant by it. But I might use “ho” in another totally different context, and mean something totally different by it.
I choose not to use the N word on these forums because I know there are people that are offended by just the sight of the word. But were I to use the whole word, it wouldn’t be with the intent to offend, oppress, or anger. I’m not black, but you’re telling me that I can’t use the word without it having that effect. To a degree, I understand that, but I draw the line at the word having meaning independant of the context in which it is used.
It’s not magic, it’s a word. I can’t say it and slap irons around the ankles of every black man within 20 feet of me (nor would I want to).
Micha,
You said something that you didn’t mean in the way I’m, going to use it, but it underscores my problem with this issue.
“But, it is their game to play, not ours.”
That’s just it, it seems like IT IS a game that’s being played. The selective outrage, the selective choice of targets of that outrage and the almost complete disregard for a word’s meaning or offensiveness seemingly, “just because.”
Yeah, I know that words don’t always have objective meaning and that their meaning changes in the context of their usage. But it’s almost laughable to see someone casting fire and brimstone about how any word is vile, despicable and beyond reproach and then turn around and use it themselves less then five minutes later as a happy, joking term or defend the use of the word as ok, fine and dandy and all good if used by certain people.
It’s seems like a game when the people who claim offense then turn around and claim that they can’t truly offend when they do the same thing. There are a number of blacks that I see regularly in the course of an evenings patrol because of where they work, catch a bus or just hang out. Imus has been a hot topic with them now as other flaps have been before. Thing is, they’ll think nothing of making racially disparaging remarks about whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews and they do so on a regular basis. If they get called out on it, they’re either not capable of being racist because only “people with power” can be racist and “blacks have no power” or they’re just “telling the truth.”
And that’s not just from guys on the street. Some of the major power players in this flap have done and said the same thing. Sharpton has a very racist history and has had more then a few prominent Jewish figures call him to the mat over remarks he has made. The results? Those that support his crusades throw away their own moral standing and mindlessly defend him, he’s never apologized in any meaningful way (if at all in some cases) and he’s really lost very little for any of it.
See, along with the last twenty years growing super-sensitivity to racial epitaphs towards blacks has been a growing habit of excusing the same activity towards other groups by blacks. I’ve seen Sharpton and other black “leaders” say in interviews about other controversies that blacks cannot be racist and that they don’t have the power to be truly hurtful. It’s just them evil white folk that can do that.
It’s been brought up that prejudice against blacks was part of American law for a good junk of U.S. history. That’s true and it was wrong when it was done. Thing is, now we’re playing the game in the other direction. If a white male assaults or kills a homosexual or black person, the additional charge of “hate crime” can be added to the event and the formal charges on the thinnest and flimsiest excuses. We’ve had cases where a black man has assaulted or killed whites while specifically ignoring any and all non-white targets and openly declaring he was doing so just because they were white. But that’s not a hate crime. No, that’s an oppressed minority acting out on his frustration from years of systematic disenfranchisement and marginalization.
There’s also the issue of race in another case that’s breaking into the news yesterday and tomorrow. Sharpton and some of the other “black leaders” that are piling on to Imus now were making the news show rounds this past year and making a race issue out of the Duke case. It became clear that the charges were a joke some time ago. Didn’t matter. These evil, privileged, white male predators were guilty of doing this vile crime to this poor, underprivileged minority. Even when every bit of evidence screamed that these guys didn’t do it, it didn’t matter because the race card could be played.
The charges have been dropped. There isn’t a case because there’s no evidence of a crime, even her friend that was with her has basically said that she’s lying and the “victim” has changed her story multiple times and lost any shred of credibility she may have been able to convince some people that she actually had. Are people going to demand that Sharpton and others apologize for their race based comments about/at whites during this case? No. And even if there was a call for it, Sharpton and others wouldn’t back down, they would claim that they were still right in the overall scheme of things and they would lose nothing. They would still have there radio shows, editorial columns, pundit gigs and other revenue sources.
It’s a game. It’s a game of, “I can do it. but you can’t. Ha-ha, neener neener.”
I don’t like the game, I say that I don’t like the game and I don’t play the game. As I’ve said, there are words that I will not use outside of clinical discussions on matters such as these. If I find a word to be highly offensive or racially charged, it’s not in my own permissible vocabulary. I find it hypocritical of others to claim a word is offensive and racially charged but then turn around and condone its use so long as it’s only used by “the right people” and no one else. If the word is as bad as people claim, then there is no “right person” to use it and no permissible circumstances for its day to day use. I don’t like the game of the race card. I don’t use it and I despise those that do so for their own power and money.
It’s also a power game. It’s been pointed out that there are other radio and TV personalities that say much the same thing on a more regular basis. Rush has a long history of racial comments and he currently has a parody song that he regularly plays that refers to Obama as “the magic negro.” It’s an old, racially charged word most often used by blacks towards other blacks.
They’re “monitoring” guys like Rush and Savage. What does that mean? Nothing really. Imus was an easy target. He doesn’t have the fanbase or support that Rush and Savage have. Imus is bounces around the #20 to #23 spots in total talk radio audience. Rush and Savage are the #1 and #3 spots. Sharpton is not going to get anywhere with attacking them. He can’t get a victory there so he’s not going to waste the capitol he does have on a failure. The Imus victory gets him more air time after the fact and more power. Failure gets him nothing.
It’s a power game rather then someone doing the right thing for the right reason. It’s an opportunist picking his spots.
“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.”
I get your point, I’m just the wrong target for that line of reasoning. I love quite a few foreign comedies where Americans end up looking like the worlds biggest clowns. Plus I grew up on Godzilla films. White guys got cast as the villains a lot in those. What can be worse then being the people that wanna off the Big G?
You do raise a good point about the use of stereotypical images. But where is the line between stereotypical images and offensive images? Almost every character on TV and in movies is a stereotype. It actually does play into this conversation though.
I remember Keenen Ivory Wayans talking about catching flack about creating racially offensive stereotypes in skits that he did for In Living Color. He caught a lot of flack for the gossipy woman talking trash behind everybody’s back and the dysfunctional family skits that he wrote. His reaction was surprise. He asked how they could be stereotypes when he was basically writing characters based on the people in his neighborhood and from his own family.
I thought they were funny because I knew those people as well and I knew them in lots of colors and creeds. Plus, it was a comedy. How many good, successful comedies involve only the best and most shining examples of humanity and portray them as flawless role models? Likewise, Matt Groening has said that the Simpsons are loosely based on his family. Matt just doesn’t have to put up with the “race issues card” that Keenen did. Somehow, that’s as wrong as anything else discussed here. Hëll, I’ve yet to see a protest group claim that Shaun and Ed as portrayed in Shaun of the Dead were offensive stereotypes of the English/white male.
“”It’s NEVER been about the word, it’s about the intention behind it.”
Really, then why can’t white comedians use the word with the same intention as black comedians? Why will a white rapper like Eimeneim (sp?) say that he won’t use that word (while claiming that the word fággøŧ isn’t the least bit offensive) in raps because it’s offensive, but he works with black rappers who throw it around like it means nothing at all? How come Richard Pryor could point to a guy being silly and say, “that ņìggá’s crazy,” and laugh about it with him afterwards while a white guy using the word the same way and with the same intentions might well be killed two minutes later?
It’s not just about the intention behind it. It HAS been and IS sometimes just about the word.
My point is simple. Don’t use the word if it’s so vile and hurtful. If you use it so cavalierly and easily while claiming that it means nothing, you undercut your own argument. That doesn’t just go for blacks either. It goes for every group.
___________________________________________________________________________
Huh, just as I was finishing typing this, Niger Ennis was on MSNBC saying basically everything I just said. So, if anyone says that I don’t/can’t understand or can’t really know what I’m talking about because I’m not black, how do they answer him saying it too? Truth is truth no matter where it comes from or who says it.
___________________________________________________________________________
*Sigh*
And once again people are allowing Mike to highjack a thread and make it, rather then a general discussion on race and racial terms, all about him and his warped Planet M Us (the evil, vile, predatory, race privileged few) VS Him (the noble genius and ultraistic defender of the underprivileged and downtrodden) delusions.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:
“Micha, it’s not “It’s about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other.” That’s what Sharpton and Jackson want it to be about.”
If it was only about Imus we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This discussion is happening because of the way this event reflects and highlights race relations in the US. There are real concerns both by whites and blacks that go beyond Imus or Sharpton, it is better if these issues are recognized.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:
“What it is about is Imus, and only Imus. He doesn’t represent his whole audience. He probably doesn’t represent even a large portion of his audience very well. If he’s got a track record, then let that be the rallying cry. Not “he said somthing bad, can him.” Instead, say “he’s got a pattern of racially insensitive remarks, and it’s time he said goodbye to his ability to spread such garbage to a wide audience.”
Fair enough. I believe that most black people who wrote on this thread did just that. If they criticized Imus, it wasn’t for his words out of context but for a pattern. But by bringing in the issue of rappers and black comedians the discussion moved on to a wider issue. The incident of Imus is important just as an event relating to this wider issue.
1. “The word has no meaning other than what is given to it.”
2. “You can’t say that “ho” means something when I use it, and another when Den uses it.”
3. “You can look at how we both used it, and try and decide what we meant by it.”
4. “But I might use “ho” in another totally different context, and mean something totally different by it.”
Exactly. statements 2-4 seem to contradict statement 1.
One person might use the word ‘ho’ to refer to his beloved girlfriend simply because he has been influenced too much by hip-hop. Another might wish to treat nice collage athletes as if they were garbage. While a third might be sliding down a chimeny giving presents. In the first case there was no negative intention, although I would suggest that this hypothetical person’s girlfriend should point out to him that it’s not nice to refer to women as ‘hos,’even if he ddn’t mean anything by it, because it evokes a certain image in the mind of ost listeners.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:
“I choose not to use the N word on these forums because I know there are people that are offended by just the sight of the word. But were I to use the whole word, it wouldn’t be with the intent to offend, oppress, or anger. I’m not black, but you’re telling me that I can’t use the word without it having that effect.”
The N word has often been used by whites to refer to blacks as inferior. It is therefore understandable that when a black man hears the word spoken this is the first association that comes to his mind. However, I believe that were you to speak the word, I believe it would be nice if a black person would ignore hi first gut reaction — understandable as it may be — and give you the benefit of the doubt until he can understand from the context what you were trying to say, at which point I am ertain he would find out that you had no intention of putting blacks down. But I also think you should be sensitive to the sensitivity of blacks, which you apparently are, since you refrain from using the offensive word.
“To a degree, I understand that, but I draw the line at the word having meaning independant of the context in which it is used.”
Which is exactly the point. The meaning is not independant of context. Although I personaly disapprove of the context of the use of the word by rappers, it is a different context than when it is used by blacks.
“It’s not magic, it’s a word. I can’t say it and slap irons around the ankles of every black man within 20 feet of me (nor would I want to).”
1. The sound of thunder cannot kill, but a person who has post traumatic stress, the sound of thunder can have a profound effect.
2. Again, as a lawyer you are probably aware how powerful words are. The racist society that enslaved blacks was created by words, sustained by words, and destroyed by words. This is exactly why freedom of speech is so important. But it is also why we shuld recognize that words have power.
————-
Every once in a while a scandal emerges in Israel over whether the Israeli symphony should play Wagner’s music. Apparently for some Holocaust survivors this music evokes very harsh assossiations, yet fand of classical music really want to hear it. I believe that Holocaust survivors should not prevent the symphony from playing Wagner. But we should recognize that their emotions are very real in that regard.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 12, 2007 01:16 PM
If they get called out on it, they’re either not capable of being racist because only “people with power” can be racist and “blacks have no power”…
And right there I think you’ve found the heart of the matter, Jerry. This issue has to do with the definition of a word… just not the “N” word.
According to the Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary, racism means “animosity towards other races” or a “belief in racial superiority.” Neither definition requires the power to oppress. Those who claim otherwise are distorting the language in order to excuse hypocrisy and double-standards.
Does racism still exist? Yeah. Does it still hurt minorities? Oh, yeah. And a number of whites rightly feel badly about that — myself included. Unfortunately, some individuals belonging to minority groups — not all, not even necessarily the majority, but too many to be deemed an insignificant number — have learned to play that to their advantage.
Is everything hunky-dory for blacks in today’s society? No. Absolutely not. But we’re not going to solve today’s problems by acting like the progress of the last forty-plus years never happened, or pretending that blacks are still completely and utterly powerless in our society.
I mean, for Christ’s sake! If blacks were still powerless, Imus would still be on MSNBC.
“I mean, for Christ’s sake! If blacks were still powerless, Imus would still be on MSNBC.”
And we wouldn’t be talking about a black man as a very real contender for winning the ’08 election.
Look, I’m long winded and all, but my point boils down to a simple one. Don’t say those words. Don’t use negative, hurtful racial discriptions. Just don’t. Anyone.
Don’t use them to hurt and don’t use them yourself and claim that they mean nothing. Carve the dámņëd words out of our public discourse and bury them in their dámņëd graves once and for all.
Den–sorry for hijacking some of your lines. But, seeing as how my temper’s been REALLY short last few days, I was struck by the connection.
And it figures. PAD WOULD say the things I was trying to only much more clearly and eloquently, not to mention in a far less verbose manner.
Crap.
Micha, I know this is an oversimplification, but it wasn’t words that ended slavery…it was over 600,000 deaths and untold damage to our fledgling country that put an end to slavery. The word thing was just a formality.
You’re correct, I do understand the power of words. I also understand the ease with which an outside party can take someone else’s words and put them to a use never intended by the original speaker. My #1…that Den and I can’t use the same word and have you tell us it means something different when we use it…isn’t stated very well. And what I meant to say is probably too complex for me to say it well without spending more time than I really should while at work.
But context really is everything, and as ugly as it may be to suggest this, the context Imus was using…as nearly his whole show is about…was humor. Vulger, shock jock, offensive to everyone, humor. I’ve seen statements here and on TV that suggest that Imus really thinks that the Rutgers players were hos…taking him literally at his word. It’s like saying I take my advice from Fred Flintstone. Imus puts on a show…anyone that takes him seriously should be slapped.
An no, I don’t really mean that. It’s supposed to be funny. But the fact that many won’t find my statement funny doesn’t mean that I’m a mean-spirited person that wants other people slapped. Contextually, it’s meant as a joke. If it’s not funny, I should apologize and not try to be funny that way anymore.
In Imus’ case, he’s made statements like this before. Trying to be funny. I’m sure he’s gotten some complaints, but on the whole, his audience kept tuning in. Either they also thought it was funny, or they didn’t care that it wasn’t. But they kept him on the air.
Part of me is starting to wonder, now that the backlash has started to hit, how will his fans react? Will the millions of people that listen to him pay attention to the sponsors that have pulled out, and stop buying from those sponsors? At first, I thought Imus himself would ask that his fans not retaliate in any way, but now I don’t know. The response seems to be so much greater than the offense, I can’t help but think that this isn’t the last ripple we’ve seen.
It is necessary to distinguish between 3 issues.
1) The issue of blacks inside their own community using the N word. In that sense I completly disagree with people here who consider it a form of hypocracy. It really and sincerely means something different for them when blacks or whites use them, and I find their reasoning credible. I don’t feel oppressed by being denied the right to use that word as freely as them, since I understand the distinction. And I don’t believe I have the right to demand that they bury the word completely. It is up to them how to deal with the collective psychological effect of that word on them. I may have an opinion; I’m entitled to voice it; some blacks might agree with me, but ultimatly it’s an internal issue.
You are probably unaware of it, but many Israelis (not myself) react to the psychological-historical effect of the holocaust by making the most terrible holocaust jokes. Really dark humor. I was with a guy in Europe, whose grandmother, I think, was a survivor. For this guy, every trainyard, every bus, everrything was holocaust. It was amazing. But maybe it’s his way of handling scars passed on from his grandmother. Sometimes you have no choice but to accept that.
2) the issue of racism or other forms of prejudice by blacks toward others. In that respect I am in complete agreement with you. If blacks talk or act in a racist manner toward other groups it is hypocracy, and they deserve the same treatment as whites. No free passes.
I believe that wheras Western white society has gone through a process (incomplete as of yet) of rejecting racist attitudes, the groups who were the victims have not dealt with the racism in their own system: this is true of Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Asians etc. My crazy right wing American uncle wrote to me complaining that you are not supposed to say Indian anymore. I answered him that you are not allowed to say kìkëš anymore either.
3) The thid issue is the issue of people using the race card to score political points. I think I’m on the record on this thread saying how much I disapprove of the practice, and I completely agree with you on this too. This not only causes harm to politics in general, it also causes harm to the very same issues these people claim to be fighting for.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 02:08 PM:
“Micha, I know this is an oversimplification, but it wasn’t words that ended slavery…it was over 600,000 deaths and untold damage to our fledgling country that put an end to slavery. The word thing was just a formality.”
And what inspired people to go to war and oppose slavery? Words. Who sent them to war? A president elected because of and by words. And what were the laws that allowed and then disallowed slavery? Words. And what were the Jim Crow laws? Words. And so were the preaching words that endoctrinated southerners that Blacks were inferior, and the preaching others to go oppose segregation. The constitution is words. The Gettisburg address is words. The ‘I have a Dream’ speech is words. Words convey ideas that motivate and influence people. They are also used in laws and the media in order to structure culture.
The truth is I don’t know enough Imus to decide in his specific case. I don’t know the history of his work, or his style, or the context. I only got involved in this thread when it went beyond Imus. I can only talk of basic principles. Like I said, it might be appropriate to criticize Imus for what he said, even if it was a joke, or an accident. But I do not support public floggings.
Look, I’ll talk about something I know. When Mel Gibson said some nasty things about Jews when drunk, I didn’t want a whole penance act either. Based on what I know about him, I do tend to believe that his words represent real antisemitic attitudes. But I don’t care. I don’t want him to go around apologizing to self appointed Jewish leaders and then going back to his holocaust denying father and crying how the jews forced him through an ordeal. I don’t want to boycot the guy or anything. If he’s antisemitic it’s his problem, and he should solve it himself. But I can’t say I wasn’t affected by his words, or that I don’t look at him differently now. But I still watch his movies sometimes.
“Really, then why can’t white comedians use the word with the same intention as black comedians?
Because they are not black and the totallity of their experience is different. I can’t talk about the experience of Americans the same way that you do either. I’m not American. However, I’m not aware of how relations are among the comedians, but I think comedians like Sarah Silverman for example can get away with a lot on this issue. Maybe her black comedian friends accept that her intentions are not racist.
“Why will a white rapper like Eimeneim (sp?) say that he won’t use that word (while claiming that the word fággøŧ isn’t the least bit offensive) in raps because it’s offensive, but he works with black rappers who throw it around like it means nothing at all?”
Eminem should be as sensitive to the feelings of homosexuals as he is to the feelings of his black friend. He shouldn’t be less sensitive to both.
“How come Richard Pryor could point to a guy being silly and say, “that ņìggá’s crazy,” and laugh about it with him afterwards while a white guy using the word the same way and with the same intentions might well be killed two minutes later?”
It is wrong to kill people for speech. People who use violence to silence other people are showing disrespect to other humans, and therefore have no right to expect respect themselves.
You know, some thought has to be given to the TV executives who thought it was a good idea to simulcast a shock jock radio host’s show LIVE on TV. This is MSNBC we’re talking about, which I always figured was a halfway decent news program. This wasn’t E! broadcasting taped Howard Stern shows at 11:00 at night.
Something like this was bound to happen, didn’t they think for one minute that it might???
Another thing…. why aren’t record producers and movie executives taken to task for signing these questionable thugs to record/movie deals? Why glorify the subculture of garbage that they revel in? Just because it’s in a song shouldn’t make talking about ‘slappin’ bìŧçhëš and pimpin’ ho’s’ or ‘shootin’ a cop with my 9′ anymore acceptable than if Joe Q. Average did that on the street.
And you have to condsider that a majority of white people buy these rap albums. So are Sharpton and Jackson saying it’s fine for a white guy to buy the album, just don’t sing along with the lyrics in your car????
This blows my mind….
If these so-called spokesmen of their race would take more time actually taking these thugs to task about their behavior and attitude rather than chastising whitey, things might start making progress. Bill Cosby took these thugs to task and was chastised by his own people… how ignorant is that?
Black kids that rise up from the ghetto and go to college and make a good life for themselves are routinely made fun of if they ever go back to visit their old neighborhoods.
Ignorance and contrarian attitudes are never going to change the perceptions of people.
“And what inspired people to go to war and oppose slavery? Words. Who sent them to war? A president elected because of and by words. And what were the laws that allowed and then disallowed slavery? Words. And what were the Jim Crow laws? Words. And so were the preaching words that endoctrinated southerners that Blacks were inferior, and the preaching others to go oppose segregation. The constitution is words. The Gettisburg address is words. The ‘I have a Dream’ speech is words. Words convey ideas that motivate and influence people. They are also used in laws and the media in order to structure culture.”
All true…but I’ll get back to your use of thunder in my statement about words not being magic. Words alone, in every single one of your examples, are worthless. Without an audience to hear them, be inspired by them, to act on them, they have no power at all. And if they fail to motivate, to inspire, they are truly powerless.
Thunder is totally different. If lightning strikes close enough to you, the sound energy of the thunder it makes can damage youe ears and other organs. Even without an audience…no people close enough to hear it…thunder alone can have an impact.
It’s not as simple as saying the words have power, and thus we must be careful how to use them. I once was in a discussion with a Born Again friend, on the importance of showing reverance to God. I asked her what if we found a people that believed in God, only their word for God was Bozo? Bozo is hardly a word of reverance in our language…but would it really matter to God what we call him? Isn’t it more important what our tone and intent are? But if we decide as a people that we can’t call God Bozo, where does that leave my hypothetical people?
Imus isn’t a white plantation owner. So far as we know, he doesn’t own slaves. He doesn’t oppress blacks…it’d be interesting to note if he has any black producers, or ever takes on a black intern. He’s not advocating for a return of slavery or segregation. He made a joke about a women’s college basketball team. Calling them “hos” is funny…because they clearly are not hos. And it involves the hip hop/rap community because without that community using such terms, Imus doesn’t make that comment. Unless he really is racist.
See, that’s the thing about the whole “it’s ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it” thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word…take the N word…and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing. But when the group that is/should be most offended by the word starts using it in a casual manner, it muddies the issue. Is it ok, or isn’t it? Does it really offend your, or doesn’t it? And if the black community has this rallying cry against racism, but then applies a racially-based double standard to language, how is anyone to take their cries against racism seriously when they embrace discriminatory racist practices?
CBS cans Imus.
I don’t feel sorry or Imus in the last, but I also give the finger to Sharpton and Jackson because they’re going to think they’ve just done some wonderful thing for the rights of African Americans, when it’s anything but.
Thank God they fired him, now all racism is sure to disappear since Imus was obviously the dubious ringleader of worldwide anti race relations. Jesus, this changes nothing! That’s why I said before: WHO CARES!!!!
Plus I grew up on Godzilla films. White guys got cast as the villains a lot in those. What can be worse then being the people that wanna off the Big G?
yeah, remember the White Guy from the Kingdom of Seatopia in Godzilla vs Megalon? The one with the toga? Made me ashamed of my white face for weeks.
Huh, just as I was finishing typing this, Niger Ennis was on MSNBC saying basically everything I just said.
Wow, man, you just had the opportunity to make the all time worst typo ever and you managed to avoid it. Close call, though.
Best comment on the brouhaha so far courtesty of Andrew Sullivan:
Culture Shock
I wish I’d taped the phone conversation I had today with the editor of the Sunday Times in London when I had to explain exactly what “nappy-headed hos” were. He had images of garden tools crowned with diapers.
“Wow, man, you just had the opportunity to make the all time worst typo ever and you managed to avoid it. Close call, though.”
Been done lots of times though. I’ve seen the man speaking before and he mentioned how many times it’s been spelled wrong in papers, on name tags and on TV scrolls. He was on TV and telling a story about how awkward some poor guy felt after looking at his notes wrong and then saying it wrong when anouncing him to a crowd.
Seemed to have a good humor about it at this point.
“All true…but I’ll get back to your use of thunder in my statement about words not being magic.”
Please replace the metaphor of thunder with something that can cause no harm on its own. A baloon exploding? No. It could hit sombody in the eye, blind him, terrible.
“Words alone, in every single one of your examples, are worthless. Without an audience to hear them, be inspired by them, to act on them, they have no power at all. And if they fail to motivate, to inspire, they are truly powerless.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if only the good words had audiences, inspired and motivated people? But the bad words have audiences too. We see it all the time. Words are rarely alone.
“It’s not as simple as saying the words have power, and thus we must be careful how to use them. I once was in a discussion with a Born Again friend, on the importance of showing reverance to God. I asked her what if we found a people that believed in God, only their word for God was Bozo? Bozo is hardly a word of reverance in our language…but would it really matter to God what we call him? Isn’t it more important what our tone and intent are? But if we decide as a people that we can’t call God Bozo, where does that leave my hypothetical people?”
That’s a good example. The same word means two different things when spoken by members of two cultural groups. Would your hypothetical people be justified in suspecting that whever you utter the word Bozo, you are not showing reverence to their god, but actually making a joke at their expence? I think they should give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect people like that would have had a long experience of their god being mocked.
As you may be aware, in Judaism it is not allowed to utter God’s name Jehova. This caution with the name of god has reached over the years a rather exagerted level of fetish, which my Mom, who had religious education, likes to make fun of. It reached a point where English speaking Jews right G-d instead of God. Now, as a secular Jew I find it silly. And I have no problem saying the word Jehova. However, were I with religious Jews I would at least try not to offend them by saying it. It cost me little to be condering of their concerns, so long as they do not seek to be too oppresive on their part, and try to get me to stumble on every word, and be as scrupulous as they are. I will say God and not G-d. And I think they will not be happy about it, but nor will they go out of their way to be offended.
“Imus isn’t a white plantation owner. So far as we know, he doesn’t own slaves. He doesn’t oppress blacks…it’d be interesting to note if he has any black producers, or ever takes on a black intern. He’s not advocating for a return of slavery or segregation.”
Racism is more than a return to slavery. One of the black posters on this thread felt that his repeated jokes at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success. His impression could be wrong, but his feelings are valid. And if it were his intention, than he is racist, even if he’s not advocating restoring slavery.
Similarly, when Mel Gibson was not saying, even when drunk, that Jews should be sent to gas chambers. Nor was he a guard i one. Yet when he said that Jews are responsible for all wars, to me his words were echoing poisonous antimsemitic attitudes that as much as I’d like seem still to linger in this world to this day (and the situation of Jews is much better than blacks). So, he was drunk, and he appologized, and I don’t really want to make a big deal out of it, and I’m not interested to have an ordeal of guilt. But these feelings are real, and I think they deserve respect. I deserve the benefit of the doubt that I’m not trying to make an insincere political gain.
“And it involves the hip hop/rap community because without that community using such terms, Imus doesn’t make that comment. Unless he really is racist.”
Maybe he is racist, maybe he’s not, I don’t know. I haven’t been following his work really. Which is why I can’t say if it was a joke, a good joke, a sincere joke, or a bad one. I certainly agree that Ãt is wrong to assume every white person is automatically racist. But he is not an impressionable suburban white kid that was influenced by listening to too much hip-hop, and I doubt he would find him self speechless if the hip-hop community did not suply him with derogatory terms.
“See, that’s the thing about the whole “it’s ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it” thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word…take the N word…and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing. But when the group that is/should be most offended by the word starts using it in a casual manner, it muddies the issue. Is it ok, or isn’t it? Does it really offend your, or doesn’t it? And if the black community has this rallying cry against racism, but then applies a racially-based double standard to language, how is anyone to take their cries against racism seriously when they embrace discriminatory racist practices?”
I don’t agree with you that the the water is muddied. You know very well the level of appropriateness of the N word, despite hip-hop, just as you know not to use the F word while visiting a first grade elementary school despite watching HBO, or Mafia movies or whatever. I don’t think it is difficult to understand that using the word in one context is OK, and it’s not OK in another. Nor do I consider it racism on the part of blacks that they ask you not to say a word they findd offensive when spoken by an outsider. I don’t consider it oppressive to be sensitive to their feelings in this. If the sensitivity and respect are not reciprocal, that’s something worth complaining about. I also think it’s absurd to suggest that it is somehow the black community that is keeping the N word alive while white America is ready to bury it.
You should take their cries against racism seriously if and when they deserve to be treated seriously. When that occurs it should not be their cries against racism but our cries against it.
I don’t believe the rreal issue here is the N word or ‘ho’. I believe that white Americans such as yourself have certain problems concerning the attitude of black America toward you, just as they have their complaints. I believe the real feelings behind this discussion are sincere and valid and should be addressed. The language used by rappers or comedians is not the real issue.
Heh. The leader of the Seatopians was the first guy I thought of when the idea of white Godzilla villains came up. Not the most impressive dude ever….
And when I saw that Jerry had the last post here, I thought he was about to break news in this thread about Imus about two hours after it was already reported, like he did last night 😉 Should Imus have been fired? I don’t know; but there was a pattern, not just this one, highly-publicized incident. And CBS does have the right not to be associated with a program which appears to support a racist, and sexist, atmosphere (though maybe they should’ve considered that before airing a “shock jock” program, or addressed the issue before it became such a show).
CBS cans Imus.
And IMO, the whole flapdoodle goes over the top.
Yes, Imus’ comment was hurtful and mean – even more so in context. However, this isn’t exactly new. How does CBS think Imus became known as a “shock-jock” in the first frakkin’ place?
Censure him, sure. Have his sponsors re-examine their contracts, okay. Fine him? Well, not sure that’s appropriate, but hey, I can see your point. Make sure he knows how wrong he was to say those things.
But firing? Effective immediately, without even giving him a chance to shop his show around to other networks, effectively depriving him of the only livelihood he’s probably capable of earning?
I think that’s a bit drastic for a set of racist comments…
See, that’s the thing about the whole “it’s ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it” thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word…take the N word…and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing.
**************
SER: I had a fairly racist teacher in grammar school who could say Martin Luther King in such a way that it dripped with as much venom if not more than “ņìggër.” Conversely, when Richard Pryor (before he abandoned the word) would talk about the “ņìggërš” he grew up up with, he embued those people with such humanity that the word had no bite. I’d like to think we’re all smart enough to know that words aren’t just letters on a page. They’re about the emotions behind them. That’s why I thought Spike Lee as full of it when he called out Quentin Tarantino on his use of “ņìggër” in his films. Could anyone really see PULP FICTION or JACKIE BROWN (especially the latter) and say that Tarantino is racist becaue of the use of that word? He honestly did remove the power from it because it essentially just became “slang” (the urban version of “dude”).
When Isaiah Washington was criticized for his use of the word “fággøŧ” (and later Anne Coulter), everyone suddenly latched on the word as if it was said in a vacuum. Washington called a colleague “fággøŧ” to demean him, to basically make him *just* that word, with all the assorted baggage therein. Coulter did the same thing.
I think of female friends of mine who might call each other “bìŧçh” when one says something particularly catty. I compare that to someone angrily shouting out “bìŧçh” at one of them in a bar if she doesn’t return his attentions.
I love words. And I would hate to see us lose words because some people *misuse* them. In fact, hate is the ultimate issue here. Washington was angry and used the word as an epithet. Michael Richards was angry and used the word as a weapon. Imus was, well, I guess just a jerk — we should first examine the motivation behind the use of a word rather than simply have a reaction to the fact that the word was used at all.
I think that’s a bit drastic for a set of racist comments…
*************
SER: Imus isn’t going to starve, so it’s hard for me to pity him. Also, call me cynical, but this is business. He was fired because CBS and NBC didn’t want anything to do with him — he was a PR nightmare. He was basically costing them money — if not directly but indirectly by the negative press they would have to counteract.
If you make your living in the media, it’s your job to keep all of that in mind.
Posted by: Micha at April 12, 2007 07:41 PM
One of the black posters on this thread felt that his repeated jokes at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success. His impression could be wrong, but his feelings are valid.
Micha, you are in essence arguing that hurt feelings should count for more than the reality of a given situation. I realize that you are trying to distinguish between feelings that are valid versus those that are not, but who is to say which is which? Feelings aren’t governed by logic or reason. Sometimes even the most rational among us will feel angry, fearful, sad, or what have you, only to realize later it was without good cause. Feelings are neither “valid” nor “invalid.” They simply are what they are.
This is why emotion, while undeniably an integral part of the human experience, is a completely unsound basis upon which to run a society. Feelings are idiosyncratic. What sets off one person may not set off another. Running a society depends on a more consistent, logical, and predictable framework. Feelings cannot provide that framework. Only logic and reason can do that.
Posted by: Micha at April 12, 2007 07:41 PM
But these feelings are real, and I think they deserve respect.
Micha, all feelings are real. I don’t want this to become a discussion about me, but let’s just say that suffering from ADHD and depression made for an… interesting… adolescence for me. I still carry some of the scars. One of the lingering after-effects is the constant fear that my friends will turn on me. My closest friends can tell you that that doesn’t make it easy to be my friend! Those feelings are “real” in that I really feel them. But my friends these days are GOOD friends — so the feelings may be real but they nevertheless have no basis in reality.
We should try to be sensitive to people’s feelings. But not to the point where we set a norm that hurt feelings create a societal debt to those who feel aggrieved.
By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations. These were individuals who weren’t remotely involved with drugs. It didn’t matter to this bášŧárd. Yet I do NOT remember an outcry commensurate with that I’m hearing over this Imus šhìŧ. I find that interesting that so many of us feel can feel triumphant for punishing a man who may have hurt some feelings — but not nearly as many people pay attention when someone is actually ruining lives merely because those lives were housed within skin of a different color.
Because the people who deny black people are experiencing their very real racism are almost exclusively non-black.
Be sure to let the black voters whose votes were systematically flushed by the Florida Bush2000 campaign chair know their nightmare is over.
That story broke after the issued was justly settled, was it not? I think it was in Texas, was it not? The outrage post-Rodney King, Imus, etc, were issues where the guilty either preserved their privilege or where it looked like they were going to be preserved.
My replies to your questions and challenges were true, and I replied to no assertion I put word in your mouth because you made none. All you gotta do is cite where I put any words in your mouth.
Peter:
My statement to you about rap were in response to yours assertion that:
“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?”
– I don’t profess to know your experience with or knowledge of rap music but qualified with ‘some’ or ‘all’ or not, what you expressed in your post was ‘ho’s’ and talk of killing cops, as though that is the be all end all of rap and hip hop music.
– Do I think you are stupid?
Only when I read Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man LOL, when I read X-Factor I think you are a genius! Plus, you make some pretty good observations here on your blog.
– If Al Sharpton or anyone else is going to go after racists individuals it should not just be limited to an attack against any specific race.
– No, Snoop Dogg wasn’t saying that people should be able to read between the lines and know that not all women are being considered ho’s and bìŧçhëš in rap songs. I was citing his words, which you also pointed out, as putting forth the obvious distinction between rap and the situation with Imus, and this is a distinction that is clearly understood in the black community. It doesn’t make it right to refer to a woman in a derogatory fashion and Imus was definitely just trying to be derogatory towards these women.
Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers:
– Mr. Myers, I made no pre-judgement about Mr. Mulligan in any regard.
– Mr. Mulligan, my intention wasn’t to take your quote out of context or put any spin on your words, as I said I doubt you meant anything in a derogatory manner, that particular portion of your statement just read as a backhanded compliment in my opinion. The rest of your statement I was in agreeance with, as well as some of the the other ideas and opinions that you have expressed.
– And yeah, definitely dunno how that post wound up on the Kirsten Dunst thread
–Yuri
Personally, I have no problem with a white comedian or a white person using the word ņìggër in and of itself, its really a matter of the context. That is what is the differentiating factor. Its the sentiment behind the words that are important. My favorite comedian, George Carlin has a great joke that illustrates this point. Look up his ’96 comedy special I believe.
— Yuri
By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations.
There was a columnist from NYC who did a whole series of articles uncovering this guy’s antics. I did find it interesting that neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton seemed to take an interest in those cases.
BTW, now that the charges against the Duke students have been dropped and it likes like Nifong will be, at minimum, disbarred, anyone putting up any odds that Al Sharpton will apologize to the Lacrosse players about the comments he made about them?