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
Posted by Peter David at April 10, 2007 09:06 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPAD:
Since I don't listen to Imus, I tend to discard else anything I hear him say automatically. But yes, he's apologized. Let's all move on.
It's the likes of Jesse Jackson (a notorious media whore) who make situations like this so much more dramatic than they need to be, especially when compared to far more relevant issues going on in the world (e.g. Iraq).
Thanks,
CHV
Amen.
I do agree though with something that was said on this morning's show by one of Imus's regulars and I can't remember his name at the moment. He brought it to Imus's attention that when there is white humor, that person being targeted is distinctive in his tone and behavior, while the humor for individual black or Hispanic people all sounds the same. In the case of black people, they all sound like "a 19th century mushmouth caricature" and for the Hispanics they sound like they sell burritos from the back of a truck. Something he needs to work on.
"In the case of black people, they all sound like "a 19th century mushmouth caricature" and for the Hispanics they sound like they sell burritos from the back of a truck. Something he needs to work on."
Yeah, but why single out Imus? I've seen "Mind of Mencia" a few times. If Mencia has portrayed Hispanics as anything other than stereotypical bean-eaters, I sure haven't noticed it.
PAD
Al Sharpton is doing what he always does, finding a way to make this story about himself.
I have yet to hear someone explain why this is being made a big deal of. Not that what he said is acceptable, but Imus (among others) have been doing this type of thing for years. I don't really care for Imus and have never found him funny. But this whole situation is just being twisted out of shape in order to get peoples names back in the news.
On that note, does anyone understand why Imus in on MSNBC in the morning? That has just confused me since I first realized that that is what was being done.
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?
This is a key question that this country (white, black, whatever) needs to ask itself.
Eric
There's an unwritten rule in comedy that you can make fun of your own ethnic heritage, but not someone else's. It's why Carlos Mencia and Paul Rodriguez get away with playing to hispanic stereotypes and why Chris Rock can get huge laughs at the Apollo using the N-word while Michael Richards had to abase himself for using the same word.
It's stupid and inane, but that's the way the world works. I never cared for Imus he has such a mushmouth manner of speaking that I still can't believe he ever got on the radio to begin with.
But, yeah, he apologized. He's taking his suspension. He even went on Al Sharpton's radio show to talk about and has offerred to meet with the Rutgers ladies basketball team in order to apologize to them in person. Other than wearing a hairshirt, what else should he do?
I'm sure we can look forward to the good reverend targeting "Naughty by Nature," performers of that anthem to respecting black females, "Let the Ho's Go," featuring the first line of:
"Bass me, face me, task the tip of a tastey
Bitches are sweet as a pastry"
"Ho's" in the title, "Bitches" in the second line. Kinda goes downhill from there. And that's from a thirty second google search. I'm sure there's many more.
If Al Sharpton wants to do something about the kind of culture that spawns Imus's remarks, he might want to start yelling at his own constituency instead of singling out one White guy.
PAD
it's all about Sharpton and Jackson- men who contribute nothing to society ( or at the least do not plug noteworthy projects ), getting their screen time every few months or so.
two words for Sharpton- Tawana Brawley
one word for Jackson- Himeytown. Meredith Veira on NBC called him out on it and he defelcted. Typical.
Wherever there is a hint of non-pc discourse or slightly off-color commentary, there they are like gum on your shoe.
No such thing as bad publicity- and msnbc caved rather than back his free speech rights. I don't like him personally, and think he's a washed up old prune. Not fun, just not funny.
I don't think, by and large, that white folks have the perspective to be able to judge whether or not the reactions of Al Sharpton and others in the black community to Imus' remarks are over the top.
Several points here to make for me.
Imus made a very tasteless comment,however
I dont like the fact as I watched this morning flipping channels that Imus is almost playing the victim here.You have freedom of speech rights ,but you also have to be able to deal with the consequences of what you say which may mean folks calling for your head or in this case your job.Instead of apologizing think before you speak,dont talk about how embarassed you are after the fact,it didnt seem to bother you when you said it.
Al Sharpton:Ok my main prob here is when did he and Jesse become spokesman for all black people??I just dont get it cause I didnt get my ballot to vote here.I detest the fact that those two self serving assclowns are seen as the voice of black america.
Apologizing to those two means nothing,apologize to the young women you insulted,answer to your bosses and by the way what does it say about his bosses that they let this type of foolishness pass for entertainment?I dont know of anyone under 50 something who listens to Imus,my only knowledge of him comes from Howard Stern hating him so much.
As far as the rappers ,that is a long running thorn in my side as well as the liberal use of the N word in rap.Not to mention how VH1 can shamelessly promote "Flava of Love "and" I love New York "which are two of the most embarassing shows on TV
Justa black dude giving his two cents
Peace
Deano
I don't listen to IMUS in the morning, but I do take offense at the statement toward African American women.
I think it is wrong that the FCC went after Howard Stern for his crude comments but nothing other than a 2 week suspension is given to IMUS.
Racism in any form is wrong, to dismiss it because its the individual job to shock the audience is unacceptable.
IMUS is moving in the right direction (apologizing to the victims and their families). In the future he should think before he engages his mouth.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
It's a matter of personal opinion of course, but I have heard Imus and his crew say so many disgusting, pointless, mean-spirited, and unfunny things over the years, I won't be sorry to see him go. I mean, it's not like he's some schmuck jabbering on a street corner... he's being employed by TWO major media conglomerates, CBS and NBC. They're paying to bring his garbage to the world.
I caught a bit of his apology, and there was one point where he said "I understand now it is not okay to make fun of some people..." which shows he totally misses the point. You can make fun of anyone you want... but you ought to ask yourself if you're actually being funny, or simply destructive.
I think we have the perspective to know that words are words, and that cries for equitable treatment and respect are hollow if they don't cut all ways.
PAD
Imus has shot himself in the foot to a degree by positioning himself as a serious source for news, commentary or interviews in the eyes of many that aren't familiar more shock jock natured past. Being carried on MSNBC doesn't help this matter. He's put himself in a place where his shock jock comments will get a bigger flap started then they would have if a Howard Stern said them. It's somewhat a problem of his own making.
Still, I agree on the matter of the hypocrisy and stupidity in the actions of the Sharptons and Jacksons out there. But, hey, if we really held people to the concept of getting their own houses in order before criticizing others for their problems, we would never hear a peep out of anybody. And THAT would be SUCH a terrible thing, wouldn't it.
"Racism in any form is wrong, to dismiss it because its the individual job to shock the audience is unacceptable."
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 "bitches" 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.
PAD
When blacks, and other groups, have to obey the SAME set of "You can't way that" rules that white's are expected too, then they can complain about Imus.
O&A made a great point today about how blacks can go on the radio and TV and insult whites and jews and anyone else with impugnity, even some black radio jocks saying that all white people hate all black people and no one says boo, but god forbid "Whitey" says something.
When the vocal members (I say vocal members because I believe intelligent black people have no problem with Imus' comments and never raise these stupid stinks over nothing) of the various "racial" and minority groups grow up, THEN and only then will they be anything more than useless leeches on society.
Jerry, the problem with "But, hey, if we really held people to the concept of getting their own houses in order before criticizing others for their problems, we would never hear a peep out of anybody. And THAT would be SUCH a terrible thing, wouldn't it." is that they don't want it to work both ways. They want to do what ever they want but scream bloody murder over NOTHING.
The only people with any right to be offended by Imus' comments is the Rutgers team he used the phrase "nappy-headed ho's", and that's only because he called them ho's.
"Political Correctness" is out of control and destroying this country bit by bit.
Wonder when the Sharptons and Jacksons of the country will get black villians banned from TV, movies, novels, and comics because "They paint all blacks as villians!"
PAD:
I think all of the above statements just prove there is a massive double-standard on race issues in America (e.g. Chris Rock [for example] can drop the n-word in performances, but no white person can).
I don't endorse the use of such language at all, but hell, it's like America is still suffering from a chronic case of collective white guilt in the wake of slavery, Jim Crow, poll taxes, segregation, and the miriad of other racist institutions exploited throughout the country's history.
Regards,
CHV
I can answer a few things that have come up: Imus is on this morning because the suspension doesn't take effect until next week, so that his on air charity event can go ahead as scheduled this week; the suspension wasn't imposed by the FCC but by the two networks that carry his show; there are plans or intentions for him to apologize specifically and directly to the girls on the basketball team, I don't know when that is expected to happen.
The little bit I've heard played in context of his comments, I think mostly he made a stupid attempt at being funny using (or sounding hip) the vernacular he knows others are allowed to use. I hadn't realized that "nappy headed" is only insulting and not descriptive. "Ho's" certainly can be seen as insulting but it does seem that that depends on who is using the term.
I got to wondering something else about the level of fuss and attention being given this story. It has long been suggested that because the news organizations are large corporate businesses that they sometimes find in in their interest to help the government by not covering a story as aggressively as we used to expect from the media, could orders have come down to spend a lot of time on this? There is a limited amount of time to cover stories in any news related show and if it is filled with this circus, there is less available to focus on the things the boys in D.C. might find inconvenient at this time.
Amen, PAD. There isn't a line or even a comma I'd disagree with.
There's an unwritten rule in comedy that you can make fun of your own ethnic heritage, but not someone else's.
Although some folks can do it. The trick is, they do it well. Chappelle was an equal opportunity offender and most of his stuff was damn funny. Lisa Lampenelli...not my cup of tea but the woman hits every group with equal venom, to the point where it's a bit hard to single out one line for offense. So it can be done but you have to be funny. Imus' comment was in no way shape or form actually funny. Maybe I've missed some cultural evolution but how does a team of black girls skilled in a sport and physically capable of kicking Imus' wrinkled ass translate into "nappy headed hos"???
As for making a pilgrimage to Al Sharpton to apologize and not be forgiven...Al Sharpton??? In a better world, Al would have been ridden out of town on a rail for any of the many manifestations of his loathsome personality. The traditional "kissing of the ring" by political candidates toward this fraud is one of those things that makes one want to turn one's head from the TV. What the hell has Imus been smoking?
I told my dad that he should have apologized on his show for being cruel to a bunch of kids who did NOTHING to deserve it and move on. The more supplication you show the more the media and associated parasites like Sharpton smell blood.
And don't get me wrong; Imus bores me to tears. I used to listen to him years ago during a one hour commute, due to my inability to find a decent music station (A problem now solved by A-moving closer to work and B-mp3 players). He has said far far far worse. Must've been a slow news week.
I don't think, by and large, that white folks have the perspective to be able to judge whether or not the reactions of Al Sharpton and others in the black community to Imus' remarks are over the top.
I disagree. Anyone with a brain can make their own judgement as to whether or not Sharpton is in any position to judge others. Anyone with a sense of fairness can make their own judgement, regardless of melanin content, as to whether or not a member of a community is being consistant in their critisism. People can be inconsistant, sure, but it's intellectually lazy to dismiss someone's opinions based on nothing more than skin color.
Aren't these two completely separate issues? Whether Imus should be fired, and whether Sharpton is a hypocrite?
I got to wondering something else about the level of fuss and attention being given this story. It has long been suggested that because the news organizations are large corporate businesses that they sometimes find in in their interest to help the government by not covering a story as aggressively as we used to expect from the media, could orders have come down to spend a lot of time on this? There is a limited amount of time to cover stories in any news related show and if it is filled with this circus, there is less available to focus on the things the boys in D.C. might find inconvenient at this time.
Oy. Well, if we are going to play the conspiracy game, how about this: we all know that Imus earned the undying hatred of Bill Clinton for his insults at the big Washington Correspondents dinner. Is it a mere coincidence that there are plans to take him off the airwaves right before Hillary Clinton runs for president?
(Answer: yes, it's just a coincidence.)
I don't understand this passive "oh it's just Imus" garbage.
1. People try to excuse Imus from what he says because other people say bad things. This is the equivalent of Republicans that stammer "b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton" every time Bush is brought up.
2. Related to point 1 - ignore Sharpton. Yes, the man is a scumbag, but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. If Sharpton came out and told you that murder was wrong, would you say that murder was good just because Sharpton doesn't like it?
3. Most importantly - this is not Imus' first incident of acting like a racist ass. He says something racist, gets called on it, promises never to do it again, then is back to his old tricks in a few months. The man admitted that he hired a producer with the specific job of "writing n_gger jokes," for Chrissakes!
An apology works for me. Once. After that, one has to ask whether the apology is sincere, or if the individual just has a steep learning curve.
Because an apology isn't "I'm sorry people were offended by my statement". Because that blames the people for being offended. If you are sorry, you try not to do it in the future.
And as PAD said...'consider the source.' We expect Imus to be offensive. He isn't really apologetic, because he probably has every intention of continuing to offend in the future. And he sees no difference between offending people with race/religion/ethnic jokes, and offending people who just disagree with your social/political/religious beliefs.
However, just because we've grown to expect this from 'shock jocks' doesn't mean we should ignore them. Ignore them, and they will grow and multiply (as they have done over the years.) The only way to end it is to stand up and quote Edgar Allan Poe: 'Nevermore.'
The issues aren't completely separate...if Sharpton is someone who can be taken seriously, then that lends weight to the "Imus should be fired" side of the equation. If Sharpton is a racist hypocrite who's fine with white-bashing or Asian-baiting but Lord help you if you mutter the slightest word against blacks, then his calls for Imus's firing should be ignored and the matter judged independently of whatever Sharpton has to say.
In other words, the issues are only separate if the answer to "Is Sharpton a hypocrite?" is yes.
Just did a bit of reading and was surprised. The New York Post had an article on the whole ordeal (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102007/news/nationalnews/imus_gets_the_old_heave_ho_nationalnews_john_mazor_and_david_k__li.htm)
and Imus was suspended for using the term "you people" while on Sharpton's show. Seems the 'nappy' comment alone only required some apologizing.
Personally? I think the nappy comment was just poor taste, undeserving of media attention. If anyone had to defend those women, I would have preferred to see a Women's Rights group or a Basketball league representative step up, not the same and tired Jackson & Sharpton combo.
Regardless of the underlying angle of his the nappy comment (be it racism, muscular women, anti-hairstylishness, whatever), I think Imus is being turned into another Michael Richards casualty.
If Sharpton & Jackson are fighting for equality for African Americans, there needs to be consensus and good relations from BOTH sides.
A playground half-full of victims is a schoolyard half-full of bullies, and we're all gonna lose our recess privileges at the rate things are moving.
Are blacks picked on, mocked or ridiculed? It happens, certainly, but I don't see it any less or more than any other nationality, ethnicity or class. When you're too proud to be offended, you'll be too strong to be a victimized class. When there's fewer victims to defend, we can all start moving forward instead of repairing a recent batch of troubles.
What I find amusing is that whites, jews, etc seem pretty content to listen to ourselves get mocked by any race when the humor is there. We only complain when victims cry when double-standards come into play.
This post wasn't leveled at anyone in particular. We all have rights and deserve the same opportunities, no matter your background.
Posted by: Peter David at April 10, 2007 11:05 AM
To say that someone can or cannot be insulting based on their race is itself racist.
PAD
That makes sense. But I just got to thinking, what if a white guy like myself were to call another white guy a "honky" or "cracker?" It'd be pretty hard for the other white guy to take it seriously, wouldn't it, as opposed to a black guy calling you that to your face?
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. "Nappy-headed" refers to their racial appearance and it's being used here in a derogatory manner. Some people might shrug it off and say "that's Imus," others might be annoyed, others might be angry.
I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime here. I don't think Imus should've been able to say that without any consequences at all, but this is getting to be too much. Just as Imus is Imus, however, Sharpton is Sharpton. He will sometimes blow things out of proportion (remember when he joined Michael Jackson in accusing Jackson's label of being racist since they allegedly didn't do enough to promote his album, at the nadir of Jackson's career?). This is what he does. Maybe Don and Al deserve each other, given their respective track records.
I don't think, by and large, that white folks have the perspective to be able to judge whether or not the reactions of Al Sharpton and others in the black community to Imus' remarks are over the top.
Sigh.
No, of course not. White people are universally in a position of privilege and power, no matter where they're from, what their background is, what their income level and education are.
It has absolutely nothing to do about anything other than the colour of your skin, and if you can glow a flashlight through your skin, then it's time to just shut up, Caspar and accept the fact that you're an oppressive racist.
"Nappy-headed" refers to their racial appearance and it's being used here in a derogatory manner.
So was it derogatory when people were calling Gina Glockson (last week's American Idol ouster) nappy-headed, because of her hairstyle? Gina is, after all, a pale white rocker chick. Not seeing a lot of outrage over that one. (With not a lot being exactly zero.)
Seems to me that there's a problem with the illusion (allusion?) that commenting on appearance is an issue, because it must only be related to one racial type of appearance. Maybe it's just my west coast roots showing, but I see an awful lot more whitefolks with so-called "ethnic" hair than I do those who "should" have it.
I'd be a lot more offended by ho - it's focusing directly on the sexuality of these gals, and not in any flattering light.
I'm obviously in the minority (no pun intended) here, but my opinion is that I'm not convinced he's actually sorry and didn't just apologize because he realized "Oh, shit, I'd really miss that NBC/CBS paycheck!!"
Until he makes me believe he's actually sorry, that he's actually grown somewhat into a more mature and respectful person, I say give 'im the axe.
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.)
Speaking as a black male, I'll be the first to say that I'm not Sharpton's biggest fan - that said, Shaprton has gone after rap music for it's violent and misogynistic contect (among the many examples are http://tinyurl.com/ywcaef and http://www.daveyd.com/FNVDec302002.html). Whatever your opinion of him, he's not being hypocritical here.
My objection to Imus's statement (especially after watching the Rutger's press conference) is that he attacked a groups of talented bright women for no other reason than to try to score a cheap laugh - these aren't public figures who hold themselves out for ridicule, they're young women
To put this in perspective (please bear with PAD, this statement might be a bit personal, but it's not meant as an attack or an insult, just as an example): I think it's similar to the time when you pointed to your daughter's Mooninite interview on TV, and one of the commenters attacked her - she did nothing to deserve that attack. I see similarities here.
Related to point 1 - ignore Sharpton. Yes, the man is a scumbag, but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. If Sharpton came out and told you that murder was wrong, would you say that murder was good just because Sharpton doesn't like it?
Of course not. There's nor eason to believe that Sharpton does not know what murder is. As opposed to making offensive rascist comments, which he seems to either be enitrely clueless about or, worse, uses to his advantage.
Imus going on Sharpton to apologize for racism is like Scooter Libby going on G Gordon Liddy to apologize for perjury. (And having Liddy not accept the apology!).
Look, it's a slippery slope either way. We allow any fool to say anything and we risk sliding into anarchy. We set controls on what they say and we risk sliding into dictatorship. I'll take the anarchy (preferably with zombies) but I can understand where others may choose differenetly (or reject the concept of the slippery slope entirely).
The Imus matter came up in discussion at the office; and one person wondered if Imus was trying to sound "cool", "hip", "with it", etc., and used a phrase he thought would make that impression, not realizing that some phrases are taken in one context when spoken by one race, and a whole other context when spoken by another race.
As a point of comparison, this person pointed out that a few years back there was a three-word expression in the Black community which I'm not even going to attempt to spell. At the time, some White suburbanites were parroting the phrase, trying to sound cool.This co worker said (both at that time and again today) that they wouldn't have said it if they'd known what it meant.
Another co-worker said he'd heard a news anchor use that phrase when it was in vogue. Again, probably trying to sound cool. He seemed to agree that Imus may have been in the same boat with the phrase he used.
To me, that three-word phrase from a few years back sounds idiotic, no matter who says it.
But back to the Imus matter. In the office discussion, I raised the point PAD made that Sharpton should go after radio stations playing rap songs that are disrepectful to women if the matter upsets him. There seemed to be a general consensus that PAD has a valid point, though one co-worker said that Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson, for that matter) has spoken out against such depictions.
Perhaps. I don't pay any more attention to Sharpton than I do to Imus. But has he spoken out at the same level he's speaking out against Imus' words? I don't know. But if he isn't then that further strengthen's PAD's point.
Anyway, what do you all think? Could Imus have said what he said thinking (somewhat naively) it would make him sound "cool" and/or give him "street cred?"
Rick
Rick
if Sharpton is someone who can be taken seriously, then that lends weight to the "Imus should be fired" side of the equation
Why should we think about Sharpton at all? Why can't we just make up our minds based on what Imus said?
PAD said: Cries for equitable treatment and respect are hollow if they don't cut all ways.
So true. I must say that I get tired of being told that I somehow cannot understand another person's perspective because I am not that person. Is it somehow more offensive to disparage someone because of race than it is to disparage her because of her sex?
Can someone honestly explain the difference between Imus saying this and Eminem saying what he says? Imus and [insert African-American rapper here--I don't know any because I don't pay attention]?
Eric
For the record, on the issue of Sharpton and rap music, here's something from an ESPN.com Page 2 column written by Jemele Hill - African American, female, and I'd never heard of her before today:
"I don't stick up for Al Sharpton often because I consider him an agitator, but Sharpton's views on "gangsta" rap have been consistent and clear."
"Last week, Sharpton and hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons held a public protest against rapper Tony Yayo -- who is associated with 50 Cent -- for his alleged assault of the 14-year-old son of a rival record company executive. Sharpton even called for a 90-day, FCC-mandated ban on all gangsta music."
"But that doesn't air on CNN and Essence magazine's Take Back the Music crusade -- a nationwide campaign that promotes up-and-coming hip-hop artists with positive values -- and it doesn't make the front pages of newspapers."
I'm just shocked that the I-Man has seen a Spike Lee film (School Daze).
(I haven't seen the film myself, but I have heard that the "nappy headed ho's" is a reference to this film.)
"...has he never bothered to crack the Bible he ostensibly preaches and stumbled over the passage about erring being human and forgiving divine?
I know this seems picayune, given the realer issues this story deals with, but for the sake of clarity in attribution, isn't the quote, "To err is human, to forgive divine" from Alexander Pope and not from the Bible?
Which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of other Biblical quotes about other-cheek-turning, or loving your enemies, or revenge being the responsibility of God and not humans, or other things that clearly aren't being followed by those continuing to stir up this pot.
As for this situation as a whole, my mind really isn't up to trying to parse everything that I'd like to say on the subject, so I'll just try and sum things up:
Imus is an idiot, and has been for a long time. But I'm not sure this deserves the kind of attention it's been given, particularly from people like Sharpton and Jackson who are, imo, almost as big of idiots as Imus.
Sharpton and Jackson are also, imo, the African American equivalents of radical feminists that were talked about in another thread. I really do think that they're more about putting "whitey" in his place more than anything else, and they abuse situations like this to the fullest.
Elayne Riggs -
I don't think, by and large, that white folks have the perspective to be able to judge whether or not the reactions of Al Sharpton and others in the black community to Imus' remarks are over the top.
Why? Has no white person has ever experienced racism?
I've experienced it, and I'm 100% white European descent.
Elayne, you have a point to the extent that one who is not black cannot understand the emotional impact of racial slurs directed at blacks. Just as one cannot understand what it feels like to be discriminated against for being Asian... unless one is Asian.
An African-American gentleman used to be a friend of mine, but unfortunately he had a habit of excoriating me for being a racist using the thinnest of thin excuses. Because we were friends, it hurt, and it's why we are no longer friends.
I have to imagine that my pain was a bit easier to bear, however, because I could walk home safe in the knowledge that my skin color would likely not cause a cop to pull me over, would not cause store security at the mall to follow me around, and would not cause the white majority to pre-judge me. After all, I'm part of the white majority.
And before anyone else howls about the "double-standard," think about it. Can you really be so naive as to believe the emotional impact is the same for a minority who suffers discrimination as it is for one who is white?
Let me put it another way: I suffered from severe, suicidal depression for years. Don't presume to tell me you could know how that felt because you've been sad too. It's not the same.
But raw, unchecked emotion is an unsound basis upon which to build and run a society. We are becoming a nation of people that wears our every feeling on our sleeves and demands that everyone else bow before the altar of our narcissism.
It's been said that words carry destructive power, and are tools of oppression. But words and ideas should be countered with other words and ideas. Laws should be reserved for injustices that cause a tangible harm, such as the "separate but equal" crap that used to be legal. Firings should be reserved for people who suck ass at their jobs.
(And yeah, I think Imus sucks ass. But he's bringing in good ratings, and from a media standpoint that means he's doing his job.)
In my own blog I opined that Imus should be fired but I've had occasion to re-think. I am, after all, a hardcore free speech advocate. If people really want to punish Imus -- stop paying attention to him.
By the way, since no one else has said it here, I will: who the hell is Imus to be criticizing anyone else's hair????????
"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."
Here's a silly question: Has anyone seen the picture of the girls in question? Are they, in fact, nappy-headed? I'm just curious. (And why do I have the song, "Guess who's coming to dinner, Natty Dreadlocks" running through my head?)
PAD
"I don't think, by and large, that white folks have the perspective to be able to judge whether or not the reactions of Al Sharpton and others in the black community to Imus' remarks are over the top."
Elayne Riggs
Are you speaking as one, or against one-I wonder. As one myself, I give nmy perspective not from the color of my skin but from what stands to sense and reason.
Imus did not have the sense to self-filter, but that's what he's being paid for, it's what gets ratings. He's one of NY's original shock jocks. He didn't coin the phrase, but it is the double standard that is existant in society today that says "Im black so I can call myself a *igga- no one else can" or "I'm gay so it's ok if I call myself a fag".
ya now what- I'm caucasian so don't call me White- I find that racially offensive and demonizing.
Al Sharpton is over the top to begin with, racial comments or not. He's a bombastic poppinjay with a knack for popping up at the right time, saying a few words to stir the pot, and then slinking back to his own corner- why is he not standing in the streets of Darfur crying foul? If someone else stood up ( maybe Gwen Ifill) besides the bamboozle brothers, I might give a damn.
Bill Myers -
Can you really be so naive as to believe the emotional impact is the same for a minority who suffers discrimination as it is for one who is white?
Sorry, Bill, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this, because it gives the same impression as Elayne: that unless you're black, you have no way of even beginning to know.
Which is too simplistic and unrealistic a view.
The fact remains that what I experienced had a great emotional impact upon me, and it doesn't matter that I'm not descended from slaves or whatever other example you care to come up with.
What matters is how I've dealt with that impact, and the fact that I haven't let it turn me into the kind of person that still roam: KKK-types that hate because it's so easy when they've never felt for themselves what racism toward them is like.
Although some folks can do it. The trick is, they do it well. Chappelle was an equal opportunity offender and most of his stuff was damn funny. Lisa Lampenelli...not my cup of tea but the woman hits every group with equal venom, to the point where it's a bit hard to single out one line for offense. So it can be done but you have to be funny. Imus' comment was in no way shape or form actually funny. Maybe I've missed some cultural evolution but how does a team of black girls skilled in a sport and physically capable of kicking Imus' wrinkled ass translate into "nappy headed hos"???
*************
SER: I also think the key to "equal opportunity" offense is the intent of the commentator. The more successful comedians come across as basically poking fun at members of their family. I think that was what separated Richard Pryror from Eddie Murphy in my opinion: Pryor poked fun and was not mean-spirited at heart. He had a routine about how he was the only guy in his neighborhood who would have sex with a homosexual. He was puncturing the down-low hypocrisy whereas Murphy was just a bully making fun of gay people.
So, that's my thing with Imus: His intent is just to belittle and be a jerk. There is no larger social satire. It's just the sort of thing that you would tell your kids not to do.
Do I think he should lose his job because of this? Well, people in the real world would lose their jobs for saying anything that insulting in an office environment. Yes, there's more latitude in the arts in that you can be a millionaire (which he would continue to be if he lost his job, so let's not weep for him) and an ass.
There are two slippery slopes we could go down here.
Since WWII, every reasonable person agrees that no society should be like Nazi Germany, wherein people were persecuted unjustly.
So Imus goes and says this (and I admit I'd never heard the phrase before, nor considered the possibility that he may have just been immitating something he'd heard elsewhere, as Rick Keating suggested). And the question is asked "what is a society like ours to do without starting to slide down that slope?"
One argument says that it was hateful, bigoted speech that led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, and that such speech should not be tolerated because another such society may spring from it.
Another argument says that going after people for saying the wrong thing will lead to people being persecuted for their opinions and, again, to a society just as hellish as Nazi Germany.
So...what do we do? I don't know. It's a dilemma, all right.
I don't know if the girls in question were "nappy-headed" but it's not a phrase I would personally use to describe anybody, since on the few occasions I've heard it used before it's not been meant as complimentary.
Just to clarify the above post, I've never heard "nappy-headed hos" before the Imus thing, but had heard "nappy-headed" before. So that's what I meant when I said I'd never heard the phrase before but that on the occasions I'd heard "nappy-headed" used in the past it hadn't exactly been flattering.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 10, 2007 01:42 PM
Sorry, Bill, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this, because it gives the same impression as Elayne: that unless you're black, you have no way of even beginning to know.
Which is too simplistic and unrealistic a view.
Forgive me, Craig, but if you are dismissing my view as "simplistic" I believe it is because you entirely missed my point: that hurt feelings are no basis upon which to run a society. I made that pretty clear.
I think it is naive to believe that the emotional impact of discrimination is the same for the white majority as it is for minorities in this country. But emotional impact is no way to judge what is or is not out of bounds, because feelings are tricky creatures: they're a necessary part of the human experience but they often get bent out of shape with little or no provocation. Feelings are individual and idiosyncratic. Determining societal parameters for behavior should be logical and consistent.
To sum up: white people cannot understand how black people feel when white people use racial slurs, but we shouldn't turn society upside-down to protect people from hurt feelings.
What's the old saying? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
The black community cannot crecibly call for word censoring by whites while at the same time embracing those very same words, and worse, in their popular culture. So long as Chris Rock gets laughs for his use of certain words, so long as MTV shows videos (yes, they do still show videos, but you have to be up very early in the morning to see them) glamorizing the thug lifestyle, any claim from the black community leaders that any other use of those terms comes up empty.
With two children looking to me for instruction and guidance...ok, the month-old girl is really only looking to me because she's attracted to sounds and motion...I'm ever more aware of the peril of "do as I say, not as I do." It's a great line, but, again, it comes up empty. You can say what should be, what you want to be, but in the end, it's how you act that really determines how people judge you. We struggle to get our 18 month old son to be gentle with the cats...when we ourselves struggle sometimes to be gentle with one of them in particular who can be extremely annoying and naughty. We don't want Xavier to take things out of other people's hands...when there are times when we have to grab things that could be dangerous or broken out of his hands without asking.
And why isn't it considered racist for it to be ok for a black entertainer to use certain words and phrases, but not ok for a white entertainer? Isn't it a sign of equality when your free to be made fun of equally, like everyone else?
Bill Myers -
To sum up: white people cannot understand how black people feel when white people use racial slurs, but we shouldn't turn society upside-down to protect people from hurt feelings.
Well, I agree with the latter, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the former.
"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."
Here's a silly question: Has anyone seen the picture of the girls in question? Are they, in fact, nappy-headed? I'm just curious. (And why do I have the song, "Guess who's coming to dinner, Natty Dreadlocks" running through my head?)
**************
SER: I think the issue is that Imus's statements weren't made in a vacuum. There's a lot of racial baggage in this country. Referring to a black person as "nappy-headed" -- even if arguably correct -- is just not ideal. It's like calling a Jewish person "hook nose" -- maybe that person *does* have a nose that resembles a hook but there's a historical weight there that would not make the comment go over well.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 10, 2007 02:11 PM
Well, I agree with the latter, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the former.
I think the point upon which you and I agree is the more important one.
Bill Myers -
To sum up: white people cannot understand how black people feel when white people use racial slurs, but we shouldn't turn society upside-down to protect people from hurt feelings.
Bladestar:
Summed up PERFECTLY.
If we have to protect everyone's feelings, then no one will ever be allowed to speak, or write, again.
You can't say "We're going to protect black's feelings, but not 's feelings."
Freedom of speech doesn;t make exceptions for feelings.
The only person who can offend you is YOU. YOU make the choice to be offended.
"And why isn't it considered racist for it to be ok for a black entertainer to use certain words and phrases, but not ok for a white entertainer?"
There's a difference when someone from a cultural group -- blacks, hispanics, gays, jews, rednecks -- refers to stereotypes in order to make fun of his own culture, and it's another when somebody from outside does it. In the first case it's satire, in the second it is suspect of being racist. It is right that only a black comedian like Chris Rock can use the N word, because he's satirizing his own culture. But it is wrong for him to use slur words against other groups like whites (although he's entitled to do it). If he does iti s hypocracy.
Chris Rock seems to use satire to criticize his own culture. But some rappers seem to glorify negative aspects of it. Here the problem is not hypocracy, but it is not a good thing. It is hypocracy for male rappers to use slur words against women and oppose whites using slur words against blacks.
Some comedians or comedy shows , like southpark, try to push the envelope. But they are not making fun of minority groups as much as political correctness in the white community.
It is understandable for blacks to be sensitive when whites use slur words agaist them. It would be nice of whites to be sensitive to their feelings. But, there are people who stretch this sensitivity (by blacks, jews etc.), twist and exploit it in order to put their political opponents on the defensive and gain undeserved high moral ground.
When somebody says something offensive to someone and truely regrets it, he or she should apologize to the person offended. But it should not be turned into an insincere, politicized festival of contrition. It causes more harm than good to everybody.
You can't say "We're going to protect black's feelings, but not 's feelings."
There was a list of groups before the "'s fellings.", but apparently I used formatting characters that blasted them, but I think the intent came across.
"To sum up: white people cannot understand how black people feel when white people use racial slurs."
That's true. But blacks (and other groups) should realize that here are whites who are well meaning enough and sensitive enough, and have their own experiences, that they can empathize with blacks to a point. They should also realize that whites (or other groups) are entitled to their own points of view without being accused of being insensitive or presumptive about the experiences of blacks.
Barak Obama handled well the accusations that he is not part of the African American experience by pointing out that his grandfather had similar experiences in colonial Kenya.
The unpleasant experiences of blacks, gays, jews, Irish, and now Muslims are all unique and different, but they should not be horded like a treasure to be lorded over others and gain a false sense of superiority.
Here's a silly question: Has anyone seen the picture of the girls in question? Are they, in fact, nappy-headed? I'm just curious. (And why do I have the song, "Guess who's coming to dinner, Natty Dreadlocks" running through my head?)
i watched some of the press conferance they just had. The girls looked like perfectly normal athletic types. Some were quite well spoken and one surprized the hell out of me when asked by a reporter if politicians should continue to go on the Imus show. Her reply was that a person running for president wants to make the biggest impact so of course they should go on the show that gets the most attention. Didn't expect that.
As for whether or not they were "nappy headed"...I have to confess, I wasn't even sure what nappy meant. I assumed it meant hair going off in every which way, like an afro without attention but other family members disagreed, saying that it meant cornrows. If wikipedia is correct we were both right...anppy can mean afro, cornrow, braids...basicaly, any hair that hasn't been straightened (like Al Sharpton's). So...I guess some were and some weren't. None of them looked like any Ho's I've ever seen.
The more I hear about this the more I have to ask myself: Who cares?!?!?! How is this really affecting anyone’s life? In fact here’s how I think most people reacted to the comments:
Person 1: Did you hear what Imus said on the radio the other day?
Person 2: Yeah…what a dick.
P1: Yep.
The end, move on, it’s never mentioned again because it doesn’t matter! If there was going to be controversy for every instance that someone was a dick then there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day to deal with it.
I have to agree with "thedeadagain". It affects no one's lives. But then again, neither did Michael Richards' outburst.
Here's a question, though, if it's only okay for blacks to make fun of blacks, latinos to make fun of latinos, etc, why did everyone flock to see Borat (IMHO, the single more overrated movie since Kill Bill, Vol I) last year? Sasha Baron Cohen isn't from Kazakhstan. What right does he have to portray that country as backwards, sexist, and antisemitic?
For that matter, why do people excuse male rappers who call women "bitches", "hos" and worse?
Here's a question, though, if it's only okay for blacks to make fun of blacks, latinos to make fun of latinos, etc, why did everyone flock to see Borat (IMHO, the single more overrated movie since Kill Bill, Vol I) last year? Sasha Baron Cohen isn't from Kazakhstan. What right does he have to portray that country as backwards, sexist, and antisemitic?
****************
SER: It's a satire of those views. Cohen was playing a character and was satirizing the anti-sememitic viewpoints that many people in that particular country (and in the world in general) have.
That's the other issue Imus has: He's not playing a role. He's himself. Granted, most public performers are playing a "role" (Chris Rock is not really "Chris Rock" on stage but a public version of himself).
If Karen Walker had referred to someone as a "nappy headed ho," I would think it idiotic for people to want to boycott WILL AND GRACE or refer to Megan Mullally as a "racist." She's playing a flawed character and the comment is meant as satire. (Tangentially, we often like to see "bad" people behave "badly" in comedy or even drama, it doesn't make us racist -- it just sends up those views and in a way defangs them; the racist is now just a punchline).
One critical aspect of comedy though is that you don't pick on the less powerful. It's just mean-spirited and bullying. If Imus had referred to Condoleeza Rice as a "nappy-headed ho," that would have been in poor taste but it would have at least been a powerful target. These are just some college kids. It's not even a professional basketball team -- you know, a bunch of millionaires who are constantly in the public eye.
Humor should be about our shared vices and our shared flaws. That was the genius of Richard Pryor. He basically said, "Yep, you and I are different and here's the dumb things we do because of that but deep down, we're all the same." His humor was about identifying with each other -- not about separating each other.
If Imus had referred to Condoleeza Rice as a "nappy-headed ho," that would have been in poor taste but it would have at least been a powerful target. These are just some college kids. It's not even a professional basketball team
Just a team that came from out of nowhere, were a bit of a Cinderella team, far exceeded expectations and were the first team of their college to make the Final Four.
And that merits getting called "nappy headed ho's"????
Seems to me that these are women who should be made role models to emulated, instead of objects of ridicule.
SER is right; it's mean spirited bullying. And woe to us, that we accept this sort of things as acceptable, let alone worthy of employment.
I see, so if a country or region has a reputation for being anti-semitic, it's okay to portray them as stupid. Didn't know that.
BTW, can I boycott Will and Grace because it's not funny?
I see, so if a country or region has a reputation for being anti-semitic, it's okay to portray them as stupid.
Huh. Anti-semitic and stupid sorta goes together...
BTW, can I boycott Will and Grace because it's not funny?
Sure. Boycotts are supposed to be functional (though I suppose it's kinda stating the obvious...)
Huh. Anti-semitic and stupid sorta goes together...
It's a matter of stereotyping, no matter what the circumstance. I don't imagine most people in the south appreciate it when the media portrays them all as a bunch of redneck crossburning good ole' boys either. So, even if there are a significant number of antisemites (and what country doesn't have a significant number of them) in Kazakhstan, do you think people in that country like to see themselves as portrayed as if all of them are not only ant-semitic, but so ignorant that they believe that Jews lay eggs and can transform themselves into insects?
No one chooses to be offended, only how to react to it.
That said, I hope Imus gets the boot. This isn't the first time he's said something awful like this (far from it) and he deserves everything he's getting. At the very least, I am LOVING watching that little weasel squirm!
I'm conflicted here, beacuse I was introduced to Imus many years ago by a friend in the SF circuit (who has, sadly, gone Beyond the Rim) and I always associate Imus with him. Said friend had a razor-sharp wit, a pun master emeritus, and could see (and call people on) any BS. I would never characterize him as racist.
That said, I agree with you, Peter. If Imus had gone on a five-minute rant comprable to Michael Richards, then I'd see context in the amount of flack.
But *nappy headed hos*??? THIS is what stems as inconsolable outrage these days?
I have a solution that I wish was implements, and it's near-perfect because everyone loses. Have Imus suspended THIS week, including the radiothon. Cancel the charity event for this year.
You can tell Imus that his big mouth costs the kids he helped, and may affect his money-raising ability in the future.
You can tell his detractors that, okay, you want him off, here you go, but a lot of kids are being affected because he's not on the air rasing money. (Yeah, there are some who will point to Imus, but you'll never get them to feel guilty.)
It's a very nasty solution, but it will wake up a few people.
Chiming in a little late here... So sorry if this ground has already been covered.
As we all know by now, Viacom/MSNBC have all acted completely (and convincingly) horrified and have suspended Imus for two weeks.
Here's what's really happening:
Suspension starts: Imus' "time off" will be paid. Company officials will privately tell Imus to enjoy his new found fame and his two week "vacation".
Imus arrives back from exile. Ratings go up by one million or two million listeners easy-- as folks tune in to hear what Imus is going to say next... Giving a "shock jock" who hasn't been the least bit relevant since the early 80's some unneccesary attention.
Ratings quickly erode as the majority of new listeners realize that Imus is a "one offense wonder". Still, some ears stick around-- making Imus' bosses very happy.
A year later, another predominately African American women's basketball team makes it to the finals of the NCAA. More free mainstream press for Imus ("Has Imus REALLY Changed?" "What is Imus Up To Now?")
One of Imus' lame sidekicks starts to mention the women's basketball final-- Imus interrupts him and says, "For the love of God, don't go there!!"
Cue "rimshot" from the studio SFX guy.
Shortly thereafter, Reverend Al shows up... All is forgiven (and soon forgotten).
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what kind of impact Sharpton & Jackson have on the African-American population?
I ask because I have to wonder if those 2 are a sort of damage-control for the type of folk (of any race) who can't just see these kinds of situations for what they are.
White man calls a black man the N-word. Sharpton & Jackson toss on their capes and arrive on the scene to deal with the situation before someone deals with it in a less... 'formal' manner?
I don't much care for either one of them. A word is a word to me, but as high-profile characters, are S&J acting to help prevent future troubles pertaining to a situation?
Bladestar,
I think you missed the sarky in my post. Big time.
PAD,
I've seen the several of the girls on TV when they were showing game footage and from this morning's fun and games. I think maybe one girl actually fits the bill. And was I the only one watching bits of the girls' press conference and laughing at how awkward and fidgety the white girls who play on the team looked? I know they wanted to support their friends, but it just looked like they wanted to throw a magic cloak over themselves and disappear everytime someone was really hitting the race issue. my wife thought that one of the poor girls was about to throw up for a minute there.
Craig J. Ries,
The point about Sharpton and Russell Simmons holding a public protest against rapper Tony Yayo doesn't really work here. This was about an actual
assault and not about protesting or boycotting because of content.
Sharpton has made a few comments here and there about the content in rap songs, but he has never been as vocal or as quick to demand firings or boycotts over even the worst rapper's work. Come to think of it, I can't off the top of my head remember one boycott that he has been a part of or started over rap content and its repeated use of words and stereotypes that will have him demanding guys like Imus to come and pay penance and tribute to all blacks through him or have their head served to the mob on a silver platter.
He's a clown and he should have been ridden out of town a loooonnnngggggg time ago.
Sharpton has made a few comments here and there about the content in rap songs, but he has never been as vocal or as quick to demand firings or boycotts over even the worst rapper's work. Come to think of it, I can't off the top of my head remember one boycott that he has been a part of or started over rap content and its repeated use of words and stereotypes that will have him demanding guys like Imus to come and pay penance and tribute to all blacks through him or have their head served to the mob on a silver platter.
I think this says more about what the media pays attention to than Sharpton's behavior. Media is notorious for underplaying good news in general, and it's notorious in minority communities for downplaying attempts coming from the black community to clean up rap and hip hop.
He's a clown and he should have been ridden out of town
Oh, no disagreements there. But media likes cartoon figures like this, who draw very bright lines between black and white.
"I don't much care for either one of them. A word is a word to me, but as high-profile characters, are S&J acting to help prevent future troubles pertaining to a situation?"
No. They don't prevent anything by their antics. All they do is demand that people bow before them. If someone refuses to do so, they turn the volume up on their rhetoric and stir the pot even more.
They do it for their power and their wallet. Sharpton even more so then Jackson.
"I think this says more about what the media pays attention to than Sharpton's behavior."
Only if you can find examples of where Sharpton has done these things. I've checked out his National Action Network website a few times before and seen lots of stuff ereally attacking or making threats of boycotts over just about everything but rap music's content. He plays lip service to how it's not right when he's pushed on it, but I've never seen him direct the kinds of wars against rap or rappers that he directs at non-blacks who've shown bad cases of foot-in-mouth disease.
Looks like there may be more to this Imus controversy than originally expected:
http://www.metadish.com/2007/04/10/imus-suspension-has-unexpected-fallout/
Hmm. First off, it's a given that it's far more acceptable for a group to make fun of itself than for an outsider to make fun of them. I work retail, and I hear a lot of my black coworkers calling each other "nigger" in a friendly, causal manner. If I called them that, my Irish ass would be in massive trouble. Jewish comedians can make fun of "their" Jewish traits, but they can be very sensitive about others using anti-Semitic "humor." Lots of gay folks are flamboyant and catty, but they hate it when straights stereotype them. It can be unfortunate -- I hate the "bitches and ho's" mentality that's very pervasive in rap music and culture -- but it does exist.
Don Imus saw a successful female basketball team and called them "a bunch of nappy-haired ho's" -- AND "jigaboos." Not a good move for a white guy.
As for everyone attacking Al Sharpton -- so? His own poor character doesn't change a word of what Imus said. It's like a version of an ad hominem attack, lessening Imus' offense because of the character of the attacker.
And for those who think Imus should keep his job... what else does he have to do? How much more before it's enough?
James Lynch,
Sharpton's antics don't change a thing Imus said. likewise, what Imus said changes nothing about Sharpton's antics or his double standards.
Media Matters has a transcript up from Sharpton on CNN yesterday.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704100004
Again, he plays lip service to gansta rap content, but you won't see him demanding that rappers be fired or music publishers be boycotted for rapping far more offensive things then what Imus said.
By all means, let the FCC and his bosses slap Imus with some hefty fines and put him on the street without pay for a while. No problem with that. You wanna call the people that air his show and tell them to drop it. No problem with that. But I do have problems with Sharpton and his race games, power trips and hypcritical antics and will voice them whenever he sticks his nose into the public debate.
Posted by: JamesLynch at April 10, 2007 05:56 PM
And for those who think Imus should keep his job... what else does he have to do? How much more before it's enough?
Doesn't matter what we think. It's what MSNBC thinks in this case that matters. If they think his benefit to their business outweighs any drawbacks, they'll keep him. Otherwise, they'll can him.
As far as "how much before it's enough" for me... well, I never listened to the jackass in the first place just because I knew this was his schtick. As I said in a prior post, if you want to hurt him, don't call for his firing. IGNORE HIM.
Ok, there really are some things that you just NEVER say. Once some things are said they leave a scar that can never heal.
Take for example the words of John August, the man working on the Captain Marvel/Shazam movie, as said in his blog the other day under the header of:
On the topic of old things sucking
"DC publishes hardcover anthologies that gather up decades' worth of Captain Marvel comics. If I were writing a dissertation on the evolution of the Captain Marvel character, these would be invaluable. But I'm not. So every time I read one of these, I'm struck with the same realization I encounter trying to watch The Honeymooners or a black-and-white movie: Wow. Old things suck.
Yes, I know that will piss off the vintage comics fans, who insist that the original incarnations are the purest forms of a character. But what you quickly realize is that old-time comic books were awkwardly written, crudely drawn, and bewilderingly inconsistent with their rules. They were making up the art form as they went along, and today's comic books are better for the accumulated wisdom.
Vintage fans are free to disagree. There's a vast but finite amount of comic books to last them through their days."
I think I may need to talk to my lawyer now.
The thought I've often had about "shock jocks" is that they're not paid to be offensive. Any moron could be offensive on the radio for three hours or so a day.
What they're paid for is to know the limits of offensiveness, and go as close to the limit as they can without going over it. That takes skill. (I hesitate to call it "talent".)
Washington, DC has for years had a shock jock who goes by the name "Greaseman". He's repeatedly gotten in trouble, usually for racially insensitive comments. The last time seems to have pretty much ruined his career -- after James Byrd was killed, he remarked, after playing a song by an African-American artist, "this is why people drag them behind trucks."
I hadn't listened to him in ages. But a friend who was listening to him that day said that it was obvious he knew he had gone way the line and was in deep trouble. And he was right, because he was fired shortly thereafter. He's back on the air again, but on a pretty insignificant AM station.
He had failed in his job -- he went past the line. Way past it, in this case.
Now, Imus... well, I don't even know where I could listen to him if I cared to do so. I think a DC station carries him, but I'm not sure. But from what I've read, he did cross the aforementioned line, but not too far. He'll do his public mea culpas and get back to being just offensiv enough.
"Sasha Baron Cohen isn't from Kazakhstan. What right does he have to portray that country as backwards, sexist, and antisemitic?"
Sasha Baron Cohen used Kazakhstan as a generic distant backward country to which he attributed, in a very stereotypical and exagerated way, attitudes like sexism and antisemitism that do exists to a degree in distant backward countries, and in not so distant countries. The target of his satire was not really Kazakhstan, but the people of the US and Britain, so he used the name of a very distant country so he could say outragous things, because he assumed most people don't know about Kazakhsta and have a fairly stereotypical view of it. So in a way this was also a joke on the expence of westerners. However, it was unfair to the real Kazakhstan to portrey it like that. He should have created and imaginary country.
There's a bigger question here. We all reject prejudice and shallow stereotyping, but shallow stereotyping is the bread and butter of the entertainment industry. It uses stereotypical images of rednecks, blacks, arabs, jews, hispanics, Italians, Irish, Russians, asians and foreigners in general on a regular basis. Sasha Baron Cohen ddn't care about the real Khazakstan, he created an imaginary country out of vague stereotypes of backward countriesthat exist mostly in the heads of his audiences (which is not to say the real world is a garden of roses).
I just want to say that using Carlos Mencia against Latinos is unfair. He's a joking stealing jack ass, and no one really likes him. The people who claim they do either believe the two basic tenets of his act, screaming and racism, equals comedy, and there are people across class/culture who believe that, or else they are Latinos who are just so pleased to see a Latino on tv that they'll take whatever idiot they can, regardless of quality.
On another note, I don't understand why people can't get why its okay for Hispanics/African Americans/Asians/whatever to make jokes about their ethnicity, but others cannot. Its not reverse racism. Its like, you can tease your siblings, call them names other people might not be able to get away with or even understand, but the minute an outsider says it, their ass is grass. Simple.
I do agree that Sharpton is an overreacting publicity hound, and that anyone trying to get Imus's head on a platter is one too. The dudes on any NYC radio station right now manage to say worse about women on a daily basis but, who cares? They're DJs not congressman.
Good grief. It's not like Imus is calling for the return of slavery or Jim Crow laws. A public flogging is what Imus deserves, and he's gotten in spades. Imus didn't invent the use of "hos" for women; we all know where that comes from. The real 'crime' here is that Imus's comments were a cheap shot. Those girls were chosen and dressed for their performance as basketball players NOT for their fashion appeal.
Let me add: as an overweight man, I long ago turned off Imus because of his ferocious FAT PREJUDICE. He uses the word "fat" as a generic perjorative, flung against anybody and everybody he doesn't like. Why jump on the bandwagon against Imus NOW? He's been spewing hate speech against "my" kind for decades, without anyone ever demanding he end his hate speech against us.
So I have a hard time joining the spew against Imus just because he attacked some privileged college athletes. This guy is insensitive to pretty much everybody, it seems. Why THIS moment of rudeness is so special is a bit of a mystery to me.
So I have a hard time joining the spew against Imus just because he attacked some privileged college athletes.
Eh. Of all the bigger time college athletes, women's basketball would be among the least privliged. They're a hell of a lot more principled than the men's side.
I've seen Borat pop up a few times in this thread. I have a friend who's a pretty recent immigrant from that part of the world, and you bring up that movie anywhere in John's vicinity, you'll get an earful.
Now, as for Imus, I'd love to see him axed, but not for this. I'd like to see him go because he's waaaaaay to close to his mike and his diction tends to be below that of the kid in Little Shop of Horrors that had her jaw removed. I know a lot of people who'd LOVE to be on radio, have the voice for it, and wouldn't cause NEARLY this kind of mess. I've just never gotten into the whole how-bad-can-we-get class of jocks.
Al Sharpton has made a career of displaying anger as a black man without anyone shooting at him, reloading, and shooting him again.
Anyone who has seen the movie "Crash" knows that the display of anger -- or even keeping your hands visible -- is a completely different issue for blacks than it is for whites. My guess is that every black person knows that when black people get angry, not a whole hell of a lot gets done on their behalf. When white people get angry, the US arbitrarily invades an oil-rich Muslim country at a cost of $2 billion a week, and Halliburton and Exxon break earning records.
When your concerns as they relate you you ethnicity are treated as if they don't even exist -- that you are a ghost whose distress there is no consequence for dismissing -- how can we fault you for backing the guy who can raise hell on your behalf without getting billy clubs rained on him? Between that guy, and the guy making millions of dollars ridiculing college girls based on his low expectations for their ethnicity and gender -- all I have to say is good for that guy if he prevails.
I've just never gotten into the whole how-bad-can-we-get class of jocks.
Me neither. If this gets rid of one, I'm not gonna cry.
Okay, since I, like so many here, don't listen to Imus, I had to go find the context on the Interwebs:
Imus was speaking with producer Bernard McGurk when the NCAA title game between Rutgers and Tennessee came up.
"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ..."
"Some hardcore hos," said McGurk.
"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said.
In that context, it's not funny. It's stupid, insulting, and pointlessly offensive, but not funny. It plays on racial stereotypes to insult a group of girls whose only apparent offense was being from Rutgers. (For comparison, would it be funny to refer to a group of girls from a historically Jewish university as "big-nosed tightwads", or Irish girls as "drunken loudmouthed sluts"?)
It plays on racial stereotypes to insult a group of girls whose only apparent offense was being from Rutgers.
And even at that it doesn't make sense...is Rutgers supposed to be some tough inner city Black College? Black enrollment is dwarfed by White and Asian enrollment. I don't recall hearung about Rutgers kids running amuck, kicking sand in the faces of smaller, weaker colleges. Did Imus just lose a bet and take it out on the kids?
One thing good about Rutgers--I have to admire the way the school has rallied around the kids. It certainly compares favorably to the way Duke sold some of its athletes down the river when they were accused of a horrific crime, a crime that increasingly looks like it may not have occured.
If Imus was black this wouldn't even be a story--just another rap song. Sharpton said it wasn't about Imus but about 'racial crap on the airwaves'(paraphrasing). If so, I would LOVE to hear what "rev" Sharpton has to say about all the 'racial hate' that is talked about daily in Milw. by MaGee---a black Rep. Oh Wait---it seems to be okay for him and his dad to say what ever they want. And if you disagrre then YOU are a bigot/racist.
I am done venting.
In what may be the final word, two sponsors (one is Staples, I forget the other one) have announced that they're pulling their advertising from the Imus show. And if there's one thing corporate America hates, it's losing advertisers.
If Imus was black this wouldn't even be a story--just another rap song.
What rapper is making millions of dollars by calling the Rutgers womens basketball team a bunch of prostitutes?
If Imus was black, congressmen and presidential candidates wouldn't waste their time being interviewed by him -- because he wouldn't have his craptacular radio show. What misogynistic rapper has that kind of power to influence elections?
If Imus had any sense, he'd take $5 million, or however much of his money he wants to take with him, and off of the interest fly first-class somewhere everyday for the rest of his life. And for the example it sets, I don't think squeezing him into some private life of luxury is an overreaction to what he said.
I'm an "African American" who personally believes that Imus wasn't trying to malign black people with his "schtick" so much as doing what he's done on several occasions: attempting to sound "ghetto" to get a laugh from black AND white listeners! One time on his radio program, I remember a Perdue spot where Perdue senior mentioned "Dark meat is optional" and I clearly heard Imus say, "Whadaya MEAN dark meat's optional? HONKY!" Same schtick, different era.
Unfortunately, this time it backfired on him and he felt that he had to apologize to "save his job" as he has on numerous occasions.
"Lookin' back on when I was a little nappy-headed boy,
Then, my only worry what for Christmas what would be my toy."
Stevie Wonder "I Wish."
That was my first exposure to the phrase "nappy-headed" and guess what? I wasn't the least bit offended! If anything, I felt nostalgic which I believe was The Desired Response!
On one of the cuts of Imus' first comedy album, he had a routine called "Swear with flair" that illustrated a scenario where a black man would rob his house and, instead of presenting a "we have to look terrified and give him what he wants" response, he used the "aggressively vulgar" approach. Admitting that this wouldn't prevent the theft, he also alluded that as the perp walked out of the door "he would probably lay five on ya!" indicating that he would at least respect the command of the utterer's vocabulary as well as his courage.
I've never been offended by Imus' humor! Intrigued, definitely, but not offended! Why? Because I've always felt that Imus was one of only a few comics, along with Lenny Bruce and Redd Foxx, who could keep the offensiveness of their humor within the correct context: making The Spouter of the Remark look humorous instead of the "intended target!" Too bad few people here, except for you Peter, "get it!"
Sorry, Peter.
I meant that you are among the few here who DO "get it" as illustrated by your perceptive "It's IMUS! Consider the source!" statement.
Bill Mulligan: "Did Imus just lose a bet and take it out on the kids?"
Nah, that's just Imus. You must know that by now.
I was an on and off Imus listener some years back for about six months. I became an ex-listener because of his need to insult and attack just about EVERYTHING he doesn't like. I mean, I'm opinionated and will say when I think something is stupid, but I'll also agree to disagree and be civil. Imus seems to need to insult, degrade and belittle anything that he doesn't actively like, enjoy or approve of. And he seems to disconnect the common sense filter that exists between his brain and his mouth when he wants to trash something.
I'm not even sure that Imus was even trying to be racist with this. The way he does his shtick, he could very well have just reached mindlessly for the first thing that he felt would be the most insulting thing he could say. His insult doesn't even really fit the team. Unless the term has been switched to a different style, most of the team doesn't come close to looking nappy-headed, they damn sure don't look like "ho's" and they're not even all black.
I'm not saying that Imus isn't racist or doesn't have racist tendencies. I'm just not sure that he was actually being racist this time rather then just being dumb as a brick with his insults. Either way though, I'm not gonna shed a tear for him over the spankings he's getting over this.
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 nigger." 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.
On the subject of the lyrics used in hip-hop, I am angered by the fact that members of own community are doing things that tear us down. There are many Black people who feel that it is shameful and disgraceful that this goes on. With that said, I must also consider the background of the young men who engage in using this type of language in their lyrics. They are more often than not from underpriveleged and undereducated backgrounds. I do not say that to excuse they're behavior, but in that light, I can't hold them to the same standard that I hold Don Imus to. Why? I've never heard of a presidential candidate or other political figure doing a guest appearance on any of their albums. I can't say the same for Imus' radio show.
Lastly I would like to mention that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the self proclaimed "leaders of the Black community." I, and many of the other people that I know do not lend either of these men any credence. If a person goes to enough places with cameras and talks loudly enough, people will soon ascribe them with more status than they have or deserve. I would have much rather seen Imus go on Tom Joyner's, a much less divisive voice than either Sharpton or Jackson, radio show to issue his apology. Imus' appearance on Sharpton's show makes neither his actions nor Sharpton's actions any more palatable.
Marcus
"When your concerns as they relate you you ethnicity are treated as if they don't even exist -- that you are a ghost whose distress there is no consequence for dismissing -- how can we fault you for backing the guy who can raise hell on your behalf without getting billy clubs rained on him?"
I'm not going to address the shrouded one directly, as he is incapable of having a rational conversation. And I hate to pick on him given his emotional fragility. But the quote above illustrates a point that needs to be made.
The shrouded one talks of minorities as "a ghost whose distress there is no consequence for dismissing." Yet Imus has been forced to apologize for his crass remark. Repeatedly. I have seen him roundly condemned by people of all races for this incident. And he has been suspended for two weeks by MSNBC. Hell, even most of those who question the severity of the reaction are acknowledging that Imus' remarks are unacceptable. No rational person could describe this as a situation where blacks' concerns are being "dismissed without consequence."
The shrouded one and Al Sharpton have something in common: both have disguised a personal agenda as a political one, and both of them unthinkingly parrot complaints that at one time had validity but bear no resemblance to what goes on today. Decades ago, you could get away with using racial slurs with nary a consequence. Media portrayals of blacks were largely limited to destructive stereotypes like Amos 'n Andy. Yet today we have far more positive images of blacks in the media, from black men in leading roles on T.V. and in the movies to the meteoric rise of Barack Obama.
The consequence of refusing to catch up with reality is to inadvertantly give a smokescreen to the racism that still exists and the damage it can do. Every time someone cries wolf, as Al Sharpton did with Tawana Brawley and as the shrouded one is doing here, it desensitizes people to the racial inequities that still exist today and need to be corrected.
I think it's the particular targets Imus was racist about that's the problem. You might call them "young women in college." But to most people they were "girls." You don't pick on girls.
You had Imus attacking young women who weren't media figures, whose only call to national attention was that they lost their big game. Heck, they're athletes who are pretty much inarticulate and couldn't verbally defend themselves.
In a post on salon.com, they showed pictures of the girls in question. I couldn't help but note that they all had bad teeth, and that the photographer made them smile with their mouths open and their teeth exposed. And I commented that they should have kept their mouths closed, like all people with bad teeth, and not show off the kind of grins that looked like they'd just been burned by hot grease.
People piled on me like I was as evil as Imus. I pointed out that I have bad teeth and have never done an open, show-the-horse-teeth smile. "I have this common sense; their photographer was an idiot trying to count their teeth like they were mail-order brides." They wouldn't listen. The other bloggers thought it was horrible that I should point out that these women had teeth that looked like factory-reject Chicklets. Why? Because I was "picking on girls."
This is where Imus went wrong.
"My guess is that every black person knows that when black people get angry, not a whole hell of a lot gets done on their behalf."
Oh, I dunno. I seem to remember black people getting angry about forty years ago and a whole Civil Rights movement resulting. But, y'know, it was the 60s, so maybe I just hallucinated it...
PAD
I really don't care if NBC fires Imus or not. I never listen to his show anyway, but reporting on him saying something racially insensitive/offensive is about as newsworthy as reporting that water is wet.
That said, I still think if someone does apologize and makes an effort to reach out to the people he offended, people should give him another chance.
On the other hand, I still don't get the great unwritten rule that one can make fun of their own ethnic heritage but no one else can or that some ethnic/cultural groups (Kazakhs, southern Americans) seem to be fair game for all.
I was thinking, does Imus use a pseudonym as way of showing he's representing everyone's darker impulses? Instead of Imus, "I'm US." Or is that one of those really obvious things that everyone knows and I can't see it due to the rock I live under?
I was also thinking that it's gotta be bad for all the news people in the world when the two big causes celebre are Imus being an insulting crank and who the REAL father of some dead model's baby is. But then, I suppose it's good that there's nothing more important in the world happening.
After watching NBC's Today Show today, I am really left wondering how much of the offence currently being viewed from the team and their coach is internally driven and how much has been spurred on, encouraged, fostered, etc by the public response and even the Rutgers institution.
The coach and a player from the team were interviewed. Neither of their responses were especially compelling or appeared to have much emotional conviction beneath them. When the Imus hooplah first began, the player stated that she was unaffected by it. When she was questioned on this by the interviewer this morning, she said that she had come to realize that she was offended and went on to toss several descriptors at Imus. It seemed more like a prepped response to me... and a clumsy one at that. A clip was shown of the team at a news conference. A few team members spoke at it. One of the two Caucasian players took the podium and stated how hurtful it was to have their victory completely taken away by Imus' statements and went on to say that it completely ruined their moment. I found myself again unconvinced.
I've worked at enough colleges to know how seriously they take public perceptionand the lengths that an institution will go through to be seen as sensitive, politically correct, and so on.
I understand that Imus is an idiot. It is because of this fact and the fact that he just isn't funny, that I don't listen to the guy. I understand that his comments could be offensive to others. I have a difficult time completely buying into the homogenious response of the team as well as the intensity of it... a response that was nearly a week in the coming before it was made or heard from at all.
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 "bitches" and "faggots" in his music even remotely the same thing as his going on a radio show and calling *specific* people "bitches" and "faggots"? 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 "nigger" 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).
The shrouded one talks of minorities as "a ghost whose distress there is no consequence for dismissing." Yet Imus has been forced to apologize for his crass remark. Repeatedly. I have seen him roundly condemned by people of all races for this incident. And he has been suspended for two weeks by MSNBC. Hell, even most of those who question the severity of the reaction are acknowledging that Imus' remarks are unacceptable. No rational person could describe this as a situation where blacks' concerns are being "dismissed without consequence."
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 hell.
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."
The consequence of refusing to catch up with reality is to inadvertantly give a smokescreen to the racism that still exists and the damage it can do. Every time someone cries wolf, as Al Sharpton did with Tawana Brawley and as the shrouded one is doing here, it desensitizes people to the racial inequities that still exist today and need to be corrected.
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.
My guess is that every black person knows that when black people get angry, not a whole hell of a lot gets done on their behalf.Oh, I dunno. I seem to remember black people getting angry about forty years ago and a whole Civil Rights movement resulting. But, y'know, it was the 60s, so maybe I just hallucinated it...
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 hell 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 ass 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 asses. 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 "cocksucker", 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 ass 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 "bitches" 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?
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? Hell, 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 damned to Hell every moment of his miserable afterlife.
Stick to basketball, Rutgers girls, I'm sure you will make millions at it. But leave Imus alone.