Let's get a few things out of the way -- this assertion that being upset with Imus suddenly makes you pro-misogynistic rap is idiotic. WHY CAN'T YOU BE BOTH? As a matter of fact, many black leaders (including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have spoken up about the issue, but the media, in these instances, doesn't cover it. Also there is plenty of positive hip hop, but popular radio and TV doesn't play it, in part because images of positive, upstanding, forward-thinking black men who want to talk about social justice doesn't sell that well in the suburbs -- those suburbans white kids much prefer their violent, sexist, bullet-proof figures like 50 Cent, Mike Jones, 3-6 Mafia, et. al.. Why are you blaming these people for the fact that popular media is selectively choosing which portion of their message to listen to?
Also, why must a discussion of a white man being racist be reduced to all kinds of character attacks on various individuals and diversions from the topic? What is so threatening about just talking about a white man saying racist things, and why that's bad? The amount of apologia for Don Imus not provided by Don Imus is shocking, and really the most disturbing part of the whole topic for me.
And what's funny is that I read that Whitlock article on another message board yesterday in a post titled "It's official, Jason Whitlock hates black people." This is hardly the first time Mr. Whitlock has taken the conservative line in attacking black culture. For perspective, let's read what someone else has to say to Jason Whitlock, even before this whole Imus thing came about:
An Open Letter to Jason Whitlock
By Dave Zirin
(Note to Reader: Over the last decade, Jason Whitlock has been one of the most prominent African American sports columnists in the United States. He writes for the Kansas City Star and AOL Sports. For reasons unclear, he often refers to himself as "Big Sexy")
Dear Jason,
I start with long overdue thanks. Thanks for inspiring me to be a sportswriter. Thanks for showing all of us that the sports page could be more than blather and box scores. For that you have my sincere gratitude.
But the sad truth is that in recent months you've changed. You've been acting like the love child of Clarence Thomas and Haystacks Calhoun. It's time for an intervention. It's actually long overdue.
I didn't speak out when you called the great Scoop Jackson a "bojangling fake ghetto posturing clown." I didn't say anything when you wrote that there needed to be a "new civil rights movement" directed at "black idiots." I didn't type a word as week after week you provided African American cover for white sportswriters to rip Pro Basketball for being too "gangsta," too "violent," and too "hip hop" with all the subtlety of Strom Thurmond. Shame on me.
But your recent work on the NBA's All Star weekend in Vegas is just beyond the pale. When you have the unholy arrogance to compare your crusade against "ghetto acting" black people to the actions of Rosa Parks, when you call young African American kids "the Black KKK", and when you liken walking the Vegas strip to being in "the yard at a maximum security prison", it's simply time to say, "enough."
In your own words, "Instead of wearing white robes and white hoods, the new KKK has now taken to wearing white Ts and calling themselves gangsta rappers, gangbangers and posse members. Just like the White KKK of the 1940s and '50s, we fear them, keep our eyes lowered, shut our mouths and pray they don't bother us."
Please, please, please take a moment to listen to yourself. The Klan at its peak had 4.5 million members. They organized campaigns of lynching and terror to keep people of color from voting, holding jobs, or even existing in peace. To compare an NBA player's entourage with this bloody nightmare makes you sound scared, small, and simple.
But we're all aware you are anything but simple. You know there are far more fights in hockey and football than basketball with nowhere near the hysteria. You know there are more brawls at NASCAR events than at Madison Square Garden. You must realize that there is zero proof the friends and family of NBA players are any more violent than anyone else. But you bleat redundantly for "a new civil rights movement" to drive them out.
You actually write, "This must be the way Rosa Parks felt on that bus. She was just tired of eating white racist (spit). I'm tired of eating black racist (spit)."
Wow. You, Jason Whitlock. The new Rosa Parks. I suppose it is Black History Month, the one time we hear a great deal about Ms. Parks and her contribution to building a better world. I don't quite recall her droning on about strip clubs and lap dances the way you do (maybe I just missed it). I don't remember her reveling in the excess that seems to define your personal life. I'm not positive but I don't think she ever referred to herself as "Big Sexy". I do know she cared more about fighting for the less fortunate than cozying up to power. Maybe she was just "bojangling."
Jason: it's time for you and your sports writing brethren, all hot and bothered over All Star Weekend, to take a long overdue reality check. You rail against the violence of NBA "posses" yet turn your back to the fact that this is one of the most violent nations on earth. This is a country that imprisons 2 million of its citizens. This is a nation that spends 1.7 billion dollars a day on the military. This is the country that started an unnecessary war in Iraq that's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,000 troops. Surely a fan of Rosa Parks like yourself is familiar with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, "I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."
As you heroically churn out columns in between trips to the local gentleman's club, a very real world beats with injustice. Black unemployment is three times that of whites. Unemployment today for young Black men aged sixteen to nineteen tops out at more than 30 percent, double that of young whites. And the latest Bush budget will mean all of this will get worse.
By devoting your column to the amplification of the worst racial stereotypes, you actually divert attention from the real issues Black America faces. In this post-Katrina world, it should be all too clear that the problem is institutionalized racism and poverty, not a kid in baggy jeans.
And I'm sorry, Jason but one last comment on comparing yourself to Rosa Parks. Rosa stood up to the Klan, the Southern Police, and three centuries of violence and hate. Rosa risked her life. You are making bank by "bojangling" for bigots.
There is certainly a new civil rights movement to be built. But it won't be based on the sanctimonious spew you're selling. Instead, it will need to involve the very people you shower with scorn.
Racial humor is all aout approach not th e race fo the comedian. Chappelle and Chirs Rock have gotten away with it for ages because they approach it with a sense of humor. Eve when Dave Chappelle says the most insulting things in the wrold you can't deny he comes off as a genuinely nice guy. Imus, even when he's trying to be funny, comes off as the kind of guy you want to punch in the face 5 minutes after meeting him.
Well, now you're just talking about personal taste in comedy. Imus may come off as a douchebag to you or I, but there are people who find him funny and entertaining, hence the fact that he has an audience who has supported him for over 30 years. Same with Chappelle and guys like him. There are plenty of people who find certain comedians insulting.
I wasn't pointing out Chappelle because of his race, but because of his material. He does some seriously racially charged comedy, and the fact that people devoured his show and Comedy Central scrambled to throw millions of dollars at him to ensure that he'd stick around... Just seems like those people who get worked up over jokes and offensive entertainment are being picky and choosy over what they're protesting.
Chappelle forces audiences to confront issues of race by bringing them to the forefront with his comedy, often allowing us to examine racism outside of the heated context of an argument or one person directing slurs at another person. He drew the line at portraying racist ideas as truth, or catering to racist audiences (even if they enjoyed his humor solely because they missed the creator's intent).
Imus is just this guy who, at best, thoughtlessly hurls slurs at whatever minority happens to be on his mind at the moment. At worst, he's a genuine bigot who uses the banner of humor to justify his behavior.
Dave Chappelle made millions of dollars making the same kind of jokes on his show, and you could probably assemble a list ten times as long by picking apart his material, and we're only talking about a couple of years as opposed to nearly 40.
Dave Chappelle personally turned down FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS and walked away from his TV show because he felt his jokes were not being understood as he meant them, so to use him as an example really doesn't help your point.
I wasn't pointing out Chappelle because of his race, but because of his material. He does some seriously racially charged comedy, and the fact that people devoured his show and Comedy Central scrambled to throw millions of dollars at him to ensure that he'd stick around... Just seems like those people who get worked up over jokes and offensive entertainment are being picky and choosy over what they're protesting.
No -- that's not how comedy works at all. Simply having "race" as a topic in your jokes doesn't make them comparable, it's about what common stereotypes or attitudes you're playing off, it's about who the real target is, it's about the layers of irony and double-meaning. "Nappy-headed hoes" spoken about a very specific group of successful group of black, female amateur athletes has only one layer of meaning, and the only people who find it funny are bigots. Chappelle's humor is rarely so personally directed, and often plays off many other elements in culture and society than just applying racist, sexist terms to a group of black women.
So really -- just drop that, because it's a gross and insulting reduction of comedy designed to obscure the point.
edit: not to mention the maxim that the true test of comedy is that you can perform it in front of any audience, which Imus' "joke" so clearly fails.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
Let's get a few things out of the way -- this assertion that being upset with Imus suddenly makes you pro-misogynistic rap is idiotic. WHY CAN'T YOU BE BOTH? As a matter of fact, many black leaders (including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have spoken up about the issue, but the media, in these instances, doesn't cover it. Also there is plenty of positive hip hop, but popular radio and TV doesn't play it, in part because images of positive, upstanding, forward-thinking black men who want to talk about social justice doesn't sell that well in the suburbs -- those suburbans white kids much prefer their violent, sexist, bullet-proof figures like 50 Cent, Mike Jones, 3-6 Mafia, et. al.. Why are you blaming these people for the fact that popular media is selectively choosing which portion of their message to listen to?
First off, I keep saying (and so do others) that there's nothing wrong with speaking out against something you don't agree with. Speaking out against Imus doesn't equate to supporting gangster rap, and I never said that it did. I know that Sharpton and many others have said that they speak out against rap culture and the negative stereotypes that it portrays or reinforces.
But I don't believe for one second that the media as a whole would completely ignore it if people like Sharpton and Jackson came out swinging just as hard at rappers and comedians as they did in this case. I just can't believe that they're trying as hard to persecute their own race as they are guys like Don Imus.
Also, why must a discussion of a white man being racist be reduced to all kinds of character attacks on various individuals and diversions from the topic?
Because it's the same thing being done to him. The people calling for Imus's job are guilty of the same behavior, and no one calls them on it.
And what's funny is that I read that Whitlock article on another message board yesterday in a post titled "It's official, Jason Whitlock hates black people." This is hardly the first time Mr. Whitlock has taken the conservative line in attacking black culture. For perspective, let's read what someone else has to say to Jason Whitlock, even before this whole Imus thing came about:
I was referencing the Whitlock article because his perspective on the insignificance of Imus and his comment was very indicative of my opinion on the whole thing: It just doesn't matter. Things like this are said in the name of comedy al the time and it's not meant as malice or hate. It's just entertainment. To me, what Whitlock says about the damage rap artists are doing to black culture is neither here nor there. They're entertainers, and people are willing to pay for their work, so they have an audience. If people applied as much pressure to record labels and radio stations to get the offending artists stricken from the airwaves, then it would probably happen just like it is with Don Imus, now.
Whitlock argues that a group within the black community is creating the majority of the problem today. That is asinine and minimizes the real problem of actual, walking talking racists. The reason Imus is getting so much shit is because he is 1) white 2) legitimized by a syndicated talk show and interviews with politicians and other high-profile folks. Frankly, both are valid criteria for putting the episode in context and it's laughable to trot out the old saw of "why can't we say it if they are saying it." It's not a double standard. It really is worse when a white person says these types of things. And it's even worse when they get all befuddled as to why they're 'held to a higher standard.'
The Whitlock piece does describe a problem, but one that largely exists within the entertainment industry. Charging that rappers create racism is akin to blaming rock music for devil worship.
Am I the only one who finds it a little offensive that David Zirin is lecturing Jason Whitlock on black history and how he should feel about the current state of black culture? He basically calls the guy an Uncle Tom.
But I don't believe for one second that the media as a whole would completely ignore it if people like Sharpton and Jackson came out swinging just as hard at rappers and comedians as they did in this case. I just can't believe that they're trying as hard to persecute their own race as they are guys like Don Imus.
I don't think this is true at all. Just like Elkamil has pointed out, Imus has a history, but it's only until the moment that he picks a horrible target (a great success story like the Rutgers team) and makes a quick sound-bite out of it that it manages to build up the momentum necessary to get anything noticed in our sound-bite saturated culture any more.
And if Sharpton is anything, he's an opportunist. You think if any media outlet wanted to touch the topic of sexism and lingering stereotype in popular music, Al Sharpton wouldn't be finding a way to stack a soapbox on top of his soapbox to talk about it? Then to top it off, rock, blues, r&b, and pop all feature their share of sexism, yet it's only hip hop which gets mentioned in these discussions? Movies, TV, media has all these subtle and not-so-subtle attitudes exhibited in spades as well, yet we "really" need to focus on the black hip hop artists, the lone pariah that's eating us from within? It's a ridiculous line of discourse, and it's telling in how when confronted with the topic of race, people choose to blame black figures and black culture, saying it's the black people's fault for ignoring the "real" problems of racism, all while these same accusers deny things like the real problems of social and institutional discrimination that they benefit from every day.
The media is very selective in what they pick up on, and if this Imus thing is the one anomaly that snuck through, I still can't be upset if its only result in one less racist shock jock on the air. Yes, it's an overall sad commentary on the popular media and the common mindset, but you still have to do what you can.
Am I the only one who finds it a little offensive that David Zirin is lecturing Jason Whitlock on black history and how he should feel about the current state of black culture? He basically calls the guy an Uncle Tom.
Should be noted that it was Whitlock who -- in a much more inflammatory fashion -- called Scoop Jackson a sambo first, so it's really just a little tit for tat, as it was Whitlock that opened that whole can of worms.
Am I the only one who finds it a little offensive that David Zirin is lecturing Jason Whitlock on black history and how he should feel about the current state of black culture? He basically calls the guy an Uncle Tom.
Should be noted that it was Whitlock who -- in a much more inflammatory fashion -- called Scoop Jackson a sambo first, so it's really just a little tit for tat, as it was Whitlock that opened that whole can of worms.
I suppose you are right in that, but I think that just saying that is mischaracterizing Whitlock's letter.
He was basically saying that black leaders are acting hypocritically for not going after the pervasive youth culture in the black community which glorifies drugs, violence, and promiscuity (and advances the stereotypes which make words like 'ho' common parliance) and is manifestly anti-intellectual. Whitlock clearly believes that this represents a much greater threat to the black community than an old shock jock talking about a basketball team, but that people like Sharpton and Jackson only go after these soft targets because its easy and popular.
Zirin responds by taking issue with Whitlocks use of metaphor and calls into question his credentials as a black man. I dunno, something about it just struck me as reactionary. I honestly think that Whitlock has a valid point and Zirin's response was a little inappropriate.
Am I the only one who finds it a little offensive that David Zirin is lecturing Jason Whitlock on black history and how he should feel about the current state of black culture? He basically calls the guy an Uncle Tom.
Should be noted that it was Whitlock who -- in a much more inflammatory fashion -- called Scoop Jackson a sambo first, so it's really just a little tit for tat, as it was Whitlock that opened that whole can of worms.
I suppose you are right in that, but I think that just saying that is mischaracterizing Whitlock's letter.
He was basically saying that black leaders are acting hypocritically for not going after the pervasive youth culture in the black community which glorifies drugs, violence, and promiscuity (and advances the stereotypes which make words like 'ho' common parliance) and is manifestly anti-intellectual. Whitlock clearly believes that this represents a much greater threat to the black community than an old shock jock talking about a basketball team, but that people like Sharpton and Jackson only go after these soft targets because its easy and popular.
Zirin responds by taking issue with Whitlocks use of metaphor and calls into question his credentials as a black man. I dunno, something about it just struck me as reactionary. I honestly think that Whitlock has a valid point and Zirin's response was a little inappropriate.
I read Zirin's letter as a response to Whitlock's coverage of All-Star Weekend, not the Imus debacle.
Zirin responds by taking issue with Whitlocks use of metaphor and calls into question his credentials as a black man. I dunno, something about it just struck me as reactionary. I honestly think that Whitlock has a valid point and Zirin's response was a little inappropriate.
Zirin was not responding to Whitlock's Imus article. Zirin was actually responding to what Whitlock said following the NBA All-Star weekend in Vegas. Whitlock has a long history of choosing black men as targets when black commentators bring up issues of race. I tried to find Scoop's response to Whitlock, but you have to have ESPN Insider to access it now, but he really went after Whitlock. It was good reading, maybe I'll search some more.
Let's get a few things out of the way -- this assertion that being upset with Imus suddenly makes you pro-misogynistic rap is idiotic. WHY CAN'T YOU BE BOTH? As a matter of fact, many black leaders (including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have spoken up about the issue, but the media, in these instances, doesn't cover it. Also there is plenty of positive hip hop, but popular radio and TV doesn't play it, in part because images of positive, upstanding, forward-thinking black men who want to talk about social justice doesn't sell that well in the suburbs -- those suburbans white kids much prefer their violent, sexist, bullet-proof figures like 50 Cent, Mike Jones, 3-6 Mafia, et. al.. Why are you blaming these people for the fact that popular media is selectively choosing which portion of their message to listen to?
First off, I keep saying (and so do others) that there's nothing wrong with speaking out against something you don't agree with. Speaking out against Imus doesn't equate to supporting gangster rap, and I never said that it did. I know that Sharpton and many others have said that they speak out against rap culture and the negative stereotypes that it portrays or reinforces.
But I don't believe for one second that the media as a whole would completely ignore it if people like Sharpton and Jackson came out swinging just as hard at rappers and comedians as they did in this case. I just can't believe that they're trying as hard to persecute their own race as they are guys like Don Imus.
I didn't follow media politics much back in 1994, but I did listen to West Coast gangster rap, and I don't recall hearing at all about this:
Jesse Jackson also has launched a major drive indicting the denigrating influence of Gangsta Rap. Jackson views Gangsta Rap as center stage in the marked increase of violence and black on black crime, a crisis that Jackson calls "the primary civil rights issue of our time." Many black churches and civic groups are joining the anti-Gangsta Rap campaign. In the Chicago Sun Times , columnist Ben Johnson cites the holiday celebration of Kwanzaa as welcomed spiritual strength in facing denigrating forces such as Gangsta Rap. "Adhering to the true spirit of our African roots," he says, "would remove us from the divisive actions that threaten to ruin our community, the dispiriting lyrics of gangsta rap, the burgeoning growth of gangs and violence and disdain by many black youths for education because it somehow means `acting white'" ( Chicago Sun Times 1/1/94).
Black was when we didn't have nothing and we put our dimes and quarters together and we built our own black colleges and our own black churches." They don't have to lynch no more. They just let the guns go in the hood and you're stupid enough to kill yourself.
We wasn't selling dope to each other. We wasn't calling our mama a "ho." If you're down, say you're down, but don't celebrate being down. People didn't pay a price for us to go back into slavery the back way.
Zirin responds by taking issue with Whitlocks use of metaphor and calls into question his credentials as a black man. I dunno, something about it just struck me as reactionary. I honestly think that Whitlock has a valid point and Zirin's response was a little inappropriate.
Zirin was not responding to Whitlock's Imus article. Zirin was actually responding to what Whitlock said following the NBA All-Star weekend in Vegas. Whitlock has a long history of choosing black men as targets when black commentators bring up issues of race. I tried to find Scoop's response to Whitlock, but you have to have ESPN Insider to access it now, but he really went after Whitlock. It was good reading, maybe I'll search some more.
Ahh! I misunderstood. I'm a dope for not checking the dates I think. I read Zirin's letter as a response to the newest Whitlock article, not the All-Star business. Sorry!
I am still a little uncomfortable with Zirin lecturing Whitlock on race, but even so my previous point regarding his letter is no longer valid. I apologize.
Frankly, both are valid criteria for putting the episode in context and it's laughable to trot out the old saw of "why can't we say it if they are saying it." It's not a double standard. It really is worse when a white person says these types of things. And it's even worse when they get all befuddled as to why they're 'held to a higher standard.'
I agree with that. Not everyone can get away with saying the same things. If I get in a fight with my mom, I might vent by saying she's acting like a bitch. If a friend chimes in with "Yeah, your mom's a bitch," I'm punching them in the face.
To my (limited) understanding, the FCC didn't pull him off the air, and if it did then what Cat said would've mattered, he was dropped by his network after a threatened boycott to his sponsors. He crossed the line according to the network and his views didn't reflect theirs and that compounded on the potential boycott caused them to drop him. Does a company reserve the right to fire someone when it deems they're hurting the company more than helping it?
Don Imus has referred to Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady," called Amelie Mauresmo "a big old lesbo," called Howard Kurtz a "beanie-wearing little Jewboy," said that "the gorilla special effects in Instinct" reminded him of "the starting line-up of the Knicks," called the Williams sisters "two booma-chucka, big-butted women" while his partner called Venus an "animal" and said that they would more likely be featured in National Geographic than in Playboy (and his said his comments weren't racist, "just zoological."), called an Indian men's doubles team "Gunga Din and Sambo," Contessa Brewer, a female newsreader, left the show because she couldn't handle his abuse, regularly calls Arabs "ragheads," and Stern has said that loved to go around the NBC studio and calling black people the n-word.
It's a good thing that I wrote this earlier, because it's been pretty handy.
And nevermind that your list of "past transgressions" are assembled over a 30+ year career in radio, and that most of them are completely taken out of context, and that most, if not all, were probably said in a comedic vein. You know, since he does a comedy show.
Most are less than 10 years old, and you should go ahead and put them in context for me. What's the joke?
The context? If you have listened to his show you would know it is a comedy show, and the character he plays, his "radio personality" is that of a crochety ornery old cowboy, a sort of insult-comic. The meanness IS the joke, and LOTS of people like it, as his ratings and presence in many markets (and up to this point MSNBC) can show. He is not a sports caster, he is not a news anchor, he is not a political commentator (any more so than howard stern is). He is a "shock jock" and runs a comedy show.
The context? If you have listened to his show you would know it is a comedy show, and the character he plays, his "radio personality" is that of a crochety ornery old cowboy, a sort of insult-comic. The meanness IS the joke, and LOTS of people like it, as his ratings and presence in many markets (and up to this point MSNBC) can show. He is not a sports caster, he is not a news anchor, he is not a political commentator (any more so than howard stern is). He is a "shock jock" and runs a comedy show.
Yeah. Imus is actually probably the only am morning show in existence I can actually listen to. I understand the context of all those comments, but it is definitely not a context that shields him from criticism for his comments.
They definitely take it too far on occasion, and as far as I'm concerned he's getting what he deserves now. It's a consequence of playing with fire.
The context? If you have listened to his show you would know it is a comedy show, and the character he plays, his "radio personality" is that of a crochety ornery old cowboy, a sort of insult-comic. The meanness IS the joke, and LOTS of people like it, as his ratings and presence in many markets (and up to this point MSNBC) can show. He is not a sports caster, he is not a news anchor, he is not a political commentator (any more so than howard stern is). He is a "shock jock" and runs a comedy show.
Yeah. Imus is actually probably the only am morning show in existence I can actually listen to. I understand the context of all those comments, but it is definitely not a context that shields him from criticism for his comments.
They definitely take it too far on occasion, and as far as I'm concerned he's getting what he deserves now. It's a consequence of playing with fire.
I agree to an extent, anyone can be legitimately criticized for anything, even comedy, BUT some of the previous posters made a good point in that the various critics and media outlets are simply quoting the lines without explaining that they were joking around, spoken quickly, and not harped upon. If you did not know Imus and just read it, you would think he was on some sort of racial diatribe or spoke it as if he was making a point.
I think the biggest mistake Imus made was apologizing as much as he did. Saying "I'm sorry" over and over to anyone who will listen only lends credibility to the attack that he meant what he said in a hurtful way, or that what he said was so terrible. He should have simply gone on the air and said that he didn't mean his remarks to offend, he was sorry if they did, that these girls deserve praise, that it was a joke, and left it at that.
I had heard rumblings about this Imus thing for some time, but hadn't heard what he said. I assumed that he called them n***** bitches.
When someone told me "nappy-headed hos," I giggled. And then I was like, "no, really, what did he say?" And then, "wait, who is Imus again?"
This is such a fucking turd of a story. The players claiming to be "scarred for life" are on lower moral standing for saying that than is Imus for what he said. I'll have to open my cliche drawer and state that we are such a god-damned culture of victimization these days. Crying victim is like currency.
This has nothing to do with Imus anymore. That was simply a springboard for Jackson and Sharpton to start chasing money and power on the shoulders of ignorance, as they have so often.
I'm curious... can we all at least agree that this specific instance was blown way out of proportion and we should be battling the roots of the problem and not the vocal outliers that will exist regardless of anything anyone ever does? Or do people still think that this media frenzy over someone that most of the country never even knew about an event that most of the country probably didn't care about is still worth endless front page, prime time news coverage?
I have to interject, his comment was far out of his vernacular. It is much more suited for black comedians and your usual top 20 music. So, there's an odd bit of reverse racism going on here...are we saying that all references with the word "ho" is being made directly at black people? Or are we saying that anyone who has nappy hair must be black? Schematics aside, this comment is being overblown and there is far too much scrutinity being placed on a particular person using a linguistic pattern that is a-okay for movie, tv, and (gasp) the radio. Honestly, i'm sure there has been a song within the last 5 years that in some way referenced a girl as being nappy-headed or a ho.
Hm. The Ludacris album Back for the First Time went 3x Platinum and one of the singles is simply titled Ho. The only person to become outraged with his actions was Bill O' Reily who was then considered racist by some. This double standard is stupid.
Edit: Just going through more of the pages and my arguement has been presented already. Honestly though, to have such hostile reaction over words is sensationalist and idiotic.
A black guy calling another black guy "n*****" has a different context than a white guy calling a black guy "n*****". Do you really think that the black man and the white man are expressing the same sentiment when they use the term? Do you really not see the distinction?
Well that works if you're a racist. Contrary to popular beleif there is no more a univerisal "black" culture in america than there is a universal "white" culture. Ths is a false dicotomy perpetuated by those who capitialize off of people's prejudices.
You've missed the point entirely. Where did I say anything about "black culture"? What does "black culture" have to do with what I said? Was that response intended for a different post altogether?
I'm curious... can we all at least agree that this specific instance was blown way out of proportion and we should be battling the roots of the problem and not the vocal outliers that will exist regardless of anything anyone ever does? Or do people still think that this media frenzy over someone that most of the country never even knew about an event that most of the country probably didn't care about is still worth endless front page, prime time news coverage?
Imus being censured* isn't going to make racists less racist, but it will hopefully make people with public pulpits think twice about making bigoted statements in the future. Few bigots care about offending people with their bigotry, but pretty much all of them do care about losing their jobs.
Imus being censured* isn't going to make racists less racist, but it will hopefully make people with public pulpits think twice about making bigoted statements in the future. Few bigots care about offending people with their bigotry, but pretty much all of them do care about losing their jobs.
Damn straight that was what we said. We said it plenty, and you'll find many instances of it. In this thread in fact, which is why you'll start quoting it.
Imus being censured* isn't going to make racists less racist, but it will hopefully make people with public pulpits think twice about making bigoted statements in the future. Few bigots care about offending people with their bigotry, but pretty much all of them do care about losing their jobs.
*Censured, not censored
And freedom of speech cried a little.
Imus getting fired because advertisers pulled out of the networks that aired him is not a fucking freedom of speech issue.
Yeah, it is actually. I realize that this isn't government censorship. But it isn't the Invisible Hand, either. Sharpton and Jackson are politicians, and attacked the racial make-up of primetime television. It was a politically-motivated mob scene. In the end, it's mostly the same thing.
Guys, remember how some us calling him racist was supposed to get him a bigger audience? Good luck with that.
Eh. He'll just move over to XM satellite radio, like his pal Howard Stern (BFF!), and get even angrier at the Uppity Negro and the Liberal Media Elites.
Yeah, it is actually. I realize that this isn't government censorship. But it isn't the Invisible Hand, either. Sharpton and Jackson are politicians, and attacked the racial make-up of primetime television. It was a politically-motivated mob scene. In the end, it's mostly the same thing.
The thing is, I doubt that he'd have been fired had the sponsors not pulled out. Suspended or lost certain affiliates, yes, but the show's cancellation wasn't announced until after GM and others pulled their sponsorship.
I'd love for a lot of the Imus defenders to actually stick to the issue at hand instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion with ad hominem attacks on the people attacking Imus for being retarded. Whether or not Al or Jesse are being hypocrites is pretty much beside the point, and pointing to their possible hypocrisy doesn't absolve Imus of any of the consequences.
You guys keep going on about how this shouldn't be news and it's overblown and what not. To me, it's just sending the message that being an openly racist asshole isn't welcome in this society. You know why all of these sorts of incidents get played up? Because they happen so infrequently that, when they do happen, people are and should be genuinely surprised. If, as so many white people keep saying, things are better than they were and we're pretty much race neutral, isn't it appropriate that we pound down these nails that stick out? If we're as free of racism as we keep saying we are, it shouldn't be a matter of whether we allow people to say these types of things, it should be a matter of how harshly we punish them for perpetuating these racist ideas.
Also, celery77, thanks for writing all the good responses that say more or less what I think.
Yeah, it is actually. I realize that this isn't government censorship. But it isn't the Invisible Hand, either. Sharpton and Jackson are politicians, and attacked the racial make-up of primetime television. It was a politically-motivated mob scene. In the end, it's mostly the same thing.
No, a politically motivated firestorm also falls under the umbrella of "free speech" and is protected in the same way as Imus' original comment. The reason it's not criminal for him to go on the air and make racist comments is because the rest of society is permitted to respond with speech of their own. Whether or not Jackson's and Sharpton's feelings about this are representative of the public, or even a portion of the black community, CBS apparently felt the firestorm was serious enough to fire Imus. It's not a free speech issue any way you slice it.
Posts
Also, why must a discussion of a white man being racist be reduced to all kinds of character attacks on various individuals and diversions from the topic? What is so threatening about just talking about a white man saying racist things, and why that's bad? The amount of apologia for Don Imus not provided by Don Imus is shocking, and really the most disturbing part of the whole topic for me.
And what's funny is that I read that Whitlock article on another message board yesterday in a post titled "It's official, Jason Whitlock hates black people." This is hardly the first time Mr. Whitlock has taken the conservative line in attacking black culture. For perspective, let's read what someone else has to say to Jason Whitlock, even before this whole Imus thing came about:
Chappelle forces audiences to confront issues of race by bringing them to the forefront with his comedy, often allowing us to examine racism outside of the heated context of an argument or one person directing slurs at another person. He drew the line at portraying racist ideas as truth, or catering to racist audiences (even if they enjoyed his humor solely because they missed the creator's intent).
Imus is just this guy who, at best, thoughtlessly hurls slurs at whatever minority happens to be on his mind at the moment. At worst, he's a genuine bigot who uses the banner of humor to justify his behavior.
So really -- just drop that, because it's a gross and insulting reduction of comedy designed to obscure the point.
edit: not to mention the maxim that the true test of comedy is that you can perform it in front of any audience, which Imus' "joke" so clearly fails.
First off, I keep saying (and so do others) that there's nothing wrong with speaking out against something you don't agree with. Speaking out against Imus doesn't equate to supporting gangster rap, and I never said that it did. I know that Sharpton and many others have said that they speak out against rap culture and the negative stereotypes that it portrays or reinforces.
But I don't believe for one second that the media as a whole would completely ignore it if people like Sharpton and Jackson came out swinging just as hard at rappers and comedians as they did in this case. I just can't believe that they're trying as hard to persecute their own race as they are guys like Don Imus.
Because it's the same thing being done to him. The people calling for Imus's job are guilty of the same behavior, and no one calls them on it.
I was referencing the Whitlock article because his perspective on the insignificance of Imus and his comment was very indicative of my opinion on the whole thing: It just doesn't matter. Things like this are said in the name of comedy al the time and it's not meant as malice or hate. It's just entertainment. To me, what Whitlock says about the damage rap artists are doing to black culture is neither here nor there. They're entertainers, and people are willing to pay for their work, so they have an audience. If people applied as much pressure to record labels and radio stations to get the offending artists stricken from the airwaves, then it would probably happen just like it is with Don Imus, now.
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
The Whitlock piece does describe a problem, but one that largely exists within the entertainment industry. Charging that rappers create racism is akin to blaming rock music for devil worship.
Am I the only one who finds it a little offensive that David Zirin is lecturing Jason Whitlock on black history and how he should feel about the current state of black culture? He basically calls the guy an Uncle Tom.
And if Sharpton is anything, he's an opportunist. You think if any media outlet wanted to touch the topic of sexism and lingering stereotype in popular music, Al Sharpton wouldn't be finding a way to stack a soapbox on top of his soapbox to talk about it? Then to top it off, rock, blues, r&b, and pop all feature their share of sexism, yet it's only hip hop which gets mentioned in these discussions? Movies, TV, media has all these subtle and not-so-subtle attitudes exhibited in spades as well, yet we "really" need to focus on the black hip hop artists, the lone pariah that's eating us from within? It's a ridiculous line of discourse, and it's telling in how when confronted with the topic of race, people choose to blame black figures and black culture, saying it's the black people's fault for ignoring the "real" problems of racism, all while these same accusers deny things like the real problems of social and institutional discrimination that they benefit from every day.
The media is very selective in what they pick up on, and if this Imus thing is the one anomaly that snuck through, I still can't be upset if its only result in one less racist shock jock on the air. Yes, it's an overall sad commentary on the popular media and the common mindset, but you still have to do what you can.
I suppose you are right in that, but I think that just saying that is mischaracterizing Whitlock's letter.
He was basically saying that black leaders are acting hypocritically for not going after the pervasive youth culture in the black community which glorifies drugs, violence, and promiscuity (and advances the stereotypes which make words like 'ho' common parliance) and is manifestly anti-intellectual. Whitlock clearly believes that this represents a much greater threat to the black community than an old shock jock talking about a basketball team, but that people like Sharpton and Jackson only go after these soft targets because its easy and popular.
Zirin responds by taking issue with Whitlocks use of metaphor and calls into question his credentials as a black man. I dunno, something about it just struck me as reactionary. I honestly think that Whitlock has a valid point and Zirin's response was a little inappropriate.
I read Zirin's letter as a response to Whitlock's coverage of All-Star Weekend, not the Imus debacle.
I didn't follow media politics much back in 1994, but I did listen to West Coast gangster rap, and I don't recall hearing at all about this:
http://www.fradical.com/Criticism_of_gangsta_rap.htm
During the mid-90s Operation PUSH also called for a 40-day "fast" of gangster rap.
http://www.drudge.com/news/93082/black-voices-decry-misogyny-few-listen
Ahh! I misunderstood. I'm a dope for not checking the dates I think. I read Zirin's letter as a response to the newest Whitlock article, not the All-Star business. Sorry!
I am still a little uncomfortable with Zirin lecturing Whitlock on race, but even so my previous point regarding his letter is no longer valid. I apologize.
I agree with that. Not everyone can get away with saying the same things. If I get in a fight with my mom, I might vent by saying she's acting like a bitch. If a friend chimes in with "Yeah, your mom's a bitch," I'm punching them in the face.
Most are less than 10 years old, and you should go ahead and put them in context for me. What's the joke?
Yeah. Imus is actually probably the only am morning show in existence I can actually listen to. I understand the context of all those comments, but it is definitely not a context that shields him from criticism for his comments.
They definitely take it too far on occasion, and as far as I'm concerned he's getting what he deserves now. It's a consequence of playing with fire.
I agree to an extent, anyone can be legitimately criticized for anything, even comedy, BUT some of the previous posters made a good point in that the various critics and media outlets are simply quoting the lines without explaining that they were joking around, spoken quickly, and not harped upon. If you did not know Imus and just read it, you would think he was on some sort of racial diatribe or spoke it as if he was making a point.
I think the biggest mistake Imus made was apologizing as much as he did. Saying "I'm sorry" over and over to anyone who will listen only lends credibility to the attack that he meant what he said in a hurtful way, or that what he said was so terrible. He should have simply gone on the air and said that he didn't mean his remarks to offend, he was sorry if they did, that these girls deserve praise, that it was a joke, and left it at that.
When someone told me "nappy-headed hos," I giggled. And then I was like, "no, really, what did he say?" And then, "wait, who is Imus again?"
This is such a fucking turd of a story. The players claiming to be "scarred for life" are on lower moral standing for saying that than is Imus for what he said. I'll have to open my cliche drawer and state that we are such a god-damned culture of victimization these days. Crying victim is like currency.
This has nothing to do with Imus anymore. That was simply a springboard for Jackson and Sharpton to start chasing money and power on the shoulders of ignorance, as they have so often.
Wasn't it Jackson who called NYC "Hymietown?"
or hymietown.
btw, I agree.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Stern could say whatever he wanted because he wasn't aiming to have Washington elites on his show. Just strippers and retards.
But playing in the adult pool means you're going to be held to a different standard.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
You've missed the point entirely. Where did I say anything about "black culture"? What does "black culture" have to do with what I said? Was that response intended for a different post altogether?
Imus being censured* isn't going to make racists less racist, but it will hopefully make people with public pulpits think twice about making bigoted statements in the future. Few bigots care about offending people with their bigotry, but pretty much all of them do care about losing their jobs.
*Censured, not censored
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Because that was what we said.
Eh. He'll just move over to XM satellite radio, like his pal Howard Stern (BFF!), and get even angrier at the Uppity Negro and the Liberal Media Elites.
You guys keep going on about how this shouldn't be news and it's overblown and what not. To me, it's just sending the message that being an openly racist asshole isn't welcome in this society. You know why all of these sorts of incidents get played up? Because they happen so infrequently that, when they do happen, people are and should be genuinely surprised. If, as so many white people keep saying, things are better than they were and we're pretty much race neutral, isn't it appropriate that we pound down these nails that stick out? If we're as free of racism as we keep saying we are, it shouldn't be a matter of whether we allow people to say these types of things, it should be a matter of how harshly we punish them for perpetuating these racist ideas.
Also, celery77, thanks for writing all the good responses that say more or less what I think.