PeterDavid.net

PAD:

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.

You're using that pesky earth logic again, PAD.

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?

Den--

No. However, calling them a rake is acceptable.

I'm all for encouraging preachers to "crack open their bibles" over these sorts of issues.

But the line,

"To err is human: to forgive, divine"

actually comes from Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism" and not the bible.

It's not that I want to be pedantic, but I needed to say that you should be sure of your sources when you use them to make a point like this (about which I agree wholeheartedly).

I'm starting to form a response to this whole event...and it sorta comes out this way...

To everyone that's calling for Imus' head...Cowboy up. And I really, really hate the phrase, because 1) it's just plain stupid, and 2) it's been overused.

But it really applies here. What did Imus say? Really? He made a joke in poor taste, and offended someone. When it comes down to it, at the end of every joke, isn't there someone saying "hey, that's not funny...because that happened to me." Shortly after I started college, I learned that a friend had died in a skydiving accident. Ever since, jokes about skydiving haven't been funny to me. People that know me well know I'm sensitive about it, and try not to tell jokes around me. But I hardly expect the world to stop telling skydiving jokes because I'm sensitive to them.

So Imus offended some people. Big deal. Imus words' aren't going to put any shackles back on people. They aren't going to bring back "coloreds to back of the bus" signs. Is Imus a racist? 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.

I'm willing to bet though, that if Imus signed a deal to go over to Sirius, Sharpton would still go on the air to get him fired from that deal.

Here's a question on the "ho" issue:

Is it acceptable to call someone like Madonna or Anna Nicole Smith a ho? In other words, if the woman in question is in fact a ho, is it acceptable to call her a ho?

************

SER: "Ho" is short for "whore," which implies that someone has sex for money. Some might argue that Smith did but there's no evidence that Madonna has.

Ultimately, though, as far as a real libel case goes, Madonna would be hard-pressed to prove damage to her reputation if someone called her a "ho." Now, Hillary Clinton, for instance, would have a case.

************
The important thing to remember, though, is that no rap song has ever targeted a specific person.

It's to your credit that you don't know enough about rap to know that this is untrue. Actually, there are many rap songs that specifically single out other rappers, ex-wives, managers, etc. Then the offended party spends 3 minutes coming up with rhymes for "cocksucker", steals a riff from some 80s band and sells their reply. Repeat. Rinse.

***************

SER: I actually was aware of that but thanks for pointing it out -- I always viewed that as the rap version the "wrestling feuds." Granted, Tupac and Biggie Smalls might argue that it's definitely more "real" than wrestling, but on the whole, a great deal of that is "fixed" for the sake of an audience. It's still pretty crummy -- much like when Eminem went after his ex-wife but again, I view public figures attacking other public figures as different from picking on kids.

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?

How about calling you a whore? I work for someone -- don't you?

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?

Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?

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?

I never said only whites died on 9-11.

The Sean Bell, Katrina, some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, Shoshana Johnson's capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch -- they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America.

"Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?"

I'm not following you...are you saying we should fire someone that makes a mistake and apologizes for it? Are we living in a society where we have to be free from mistakes, we have to be perfect, in order to keep our jobs?

Posted by: Mike at April 11, 2007 02:00 PM

Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?

You royally offended our host. It was something you should have known better than to do. You said you were wrong and you were sorry. Yet you continue to avail yourself of this forum. Why do you reserve for yourself a privilege you would deny to Imus?

How about calling you a whore? I work for someone -- don't you?

I don't know what your job is, but I don't have sex with my employer.

And that's why you haven't gotten that raise, Den...

All this press for Imus' comments, but we have a nationwide media blackout on the story of what happened to Channon Christian and Chris Newsom. Google their names and you'll see why the mainstream media is working hard to keep what happened to them out of the national spotlight. It's an incredible, disturbing story that would be a major nationwide story if there was any justice in this world.

"... and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be damned to Hell every moment of his miserable afterlife."

Dude, you got the wrong B.A.

Bigots Anonymous is down the hall, second door on the right.

We're Battlestar Addicts.

Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Roger B. Taney at April 11, 2007 01:18 PM

I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be damned to Hell every moment of his miserable afterlife.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, it appears that thinking isn't your strong suit. You may want to take up a hobby for which you are better suited, like sitting in a rickety old rocking chair, complaining about "revenoors" and drooling a lot.

Posted by: Roger B. Taney at April 11, 2007 01:18 PM

I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be damned to Hell every moment of his miserable afterlife.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, it appears that thinking isn't your strong suit. You may want to take up a hobby for which you are better suited, like sitting in a rickety old rocking chair, complaining about "revenoors" and drooling a lot.

Imus said he was wrong and he was sorry. How about canning him simply to take him at his word?

You royally offended our host. It was something you should have known better than to do. You said you were wrong and you were sorry. Yet you continue to avail yourself of this forum. Why do you reserve for yourself a privilege you would deny to Imus?

Peter can ask me to return the millions of dollars he's paid me anytime he pleases, which, if you need to hear it, comes to $0.

I'm not following you... are you saying we should fire someone that makes a mistake and apologizes for it? Are we living in a society where we have to be free from mistakes, we have to be perfect, in order to keep our jobs?

If he took money for riduculing college girls based on his low expectations of their ethnicity and gender -- sure. His broadcasting career establishes his pattern. He should leave because his salary is fruit of a poisonous tree. And if Reverend Al has to slap the apple out of Imus's hand, good for Reverend Al.

I don't know what your job is, but I don't have sex with my employer.

Oh. I take it then you consider the first 5 years of "Cheers" a prostitution comedy. Like me, you must wonder what the big obstacle is to legalizing prostitution.

Bill Myers wrote: "Media portrayals of blacks were largely limited to destructive stereotypes like Amos 'n Andy."

Just for the record, according to radio historian Elizabeth McLeod, Amos and Andy, as originally aired on radio from 1928-1943, was a character-driven serial. That was the Amos and Andy that was so popular that movie theaters would stop the film so the radio show could be piped in.

In later years, the characters became more exaggerated and the show turned into a broadly-played sitcom. It's that later version (and/or the TV version which followed) that drew criticism.

On her website http://www.midcoast.com/~lizmcl/aa.html

McLeod writes of the characters as portrayed in those early years of the serial:

"Central to the program was the tension between the lead characters. Amos stood as an "Everyman" figure: a sympathetic, occasionally heroic individual who combined  practical intelligence and a  grittydetermination to succeed with deep compassion -- along with a caustic sense of humor and a tendency to repress his anger until it suddenly exploded. Andy, by contrast, was a pretentious braggart -- obsessed with the symbols of success but unwilling to put forth the effort required to earn them."

McLeod recently published a book about the show's history called The Original Amos 'N Andy, which I need to buy one day. For years she's been writing about the show and issues surrounding it on an E-Mail OTR Digest, a forum dedicated to old-time radio. They were fascinating tidbits of information.

One thing I learned is that almost all of those early broadcasts no longer exist, except in script form. No doubt that partially explains why most people aren't familiar with anything other than the sitcom version.

Would it have been better if Black actors had portrayed the characters on radio (as they later did on TV)? Without a doubt. When you have a character of a particular race, you should make it the part available to an actor of that race to begin with. Although in radio, no one can see what the character looks like (except in his or her mind's eye).

In a perfect world, there would have been actors of all races in radio, and playing parts best suited for their vocal skills, regardless of the actor's race. For example, say you need both Scottish and French characters for your small cast radio show, and the best actor to handle both accents (and also sound like entirely different people) is Black? Hire him.

For the record, McLeod also addressed the fact that the Amos and Andy actors were White on her website (and no doubt in more detail in the book). However, they weren't trying to create (or play upon) stereotypes to get cheap laughs:

"Correll and Gosden were fascinated by human nature, and their approach to both comedy and drama drew from their observations  of the traits and motivations that drive the actions of all people:  while often overlapping popular stereotypes of African-Americans, there was at the same time a universality to their characters which transcended race."

Rick

Where is all the outrage against Chappelle and Mencia and South Park? Whether it's a news/humor hybrid like morning radio, or an over-the-top skit show, it's STILL a matter of using offensive language for entertainment.

How is Imus worse? Imus's audience is older people. But Comedy Central speaks to young people who are still determining their perceptions on race and racism.

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of minorities portraying white men as either dorks or squares. Sure, I have laughed at this going back to Richard Pryor. But it's wearing thin and it's hard to quiet one side when the other gets free rein.

I was born and raised in the pre-integration South, and I wish to God every day, when I see the violent crime, the drugs, the unintelligble chatter, the loudness, the rudeness, the anger amongst those Lincoln freed, that 1964 had never happened, and that Lyndon Johnson be damned to Hell every moment of his miserable afterlife.

Someone should tell Roger B. Taney there's a nut posting under his name.

Although I would have to agree that it's strange to hear anger from "those Lincoln freed". Hell, if I make it to 143 I'm going to be damned grateful!

The Sean Bell, Katrina, some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, Shoshana Johnson's capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch -- they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America.

Well I'm all for attacking Hurricane Katrina with everything we've got. Though since Whites died at disproportionately high rates from the Hurricane maybe that wasn't such a great example. Facts, they really are pains in the ass, aren't they?

It would also be nice if you specified who the "some missing black girl" was. There are more than one and, if one is complaining about how blacks are ignored, it might be, um, well, at least consistent to put in the minimal effort to give the child a name. Were you referring to Alexis Patterson from Milwaukee? One reason why here story did not resonate with most Americans Black or White was her unfortunate home life--it was easy to assume that she was the victim of her stepfather's criminal past (including drugs and driving a getaway car in a robbery where a cop was killed). Not a family that most peope will find much in common with. Not that this lessens the tragedy; the child is not responsible for the misdeeds of others. (And nothing has turned up that would lend credence to the stepfather being involved.)

I might add that in my little hometown a young woman(Julie Michelle Bullard) was kidnapped in front of people, vanished, and later turned up dead. Nobody has been charged with the crime. A guy killed himself a few days after her kidnapping when pulled over by the cops. No link has ever been established. She was white. It's a hell of a story. As far as I know it hasn't made much of a stir beyond Sanford. I don’t see anyone claiming that it proves that Southern lives are worth less than Northern ones though.

(special note to the guy claiming to be Roger B. Taney--don't come! You wouldn't like it here! Lots of Black folks and Latinos! Uppity ones too, the kind that are liable to give major back talk to a racist old cracker! Save yourself the heartache and stay wherever the hell you are!)

1) It's never appropriate to cal someone a 'ho.' It's a term meant to put people down, and that's never right. Even to actual prostitutes.

2) There is no connection whatsover between a white broadcaster and a black rapper using the N word. I'm sorry if some of you feel opressed by not being able to use it, or other such terms. But there is a huge difference in context between when a black rapper uses it and when a white guy. Rappers are talking inside and about there own subculture. You might disapprove of the way they talk -- I certainly do -- but it is completely different when a white man uses a phrase like that, which has been used by whites they way it has for so long, and it would be nice if people were sentive to the feelings of blacks on these issues, I think they earned it. Al Sharpton should be criticized, because if blacks(or anybody else) want others to respect their sensitivity, and they should, then it is wrong to use that sensitivity insincerely and in an affected way as a cheep political tool.

It is true that blacks were oppressed by chains not words, but do not discount the power of words. it was words that created the racist society that most of us (except Roger B. Taney) reject today. As a Lawyer, Bob Alfred, you should be aware of that. This does not mean that freedom of speech should be curtailed. nobody is saying that. But when someone uses language in order to oppress and put down -- white or black --- than other people should use words to speak up against him before the words create a society that forges chains that really enslave people.

3) It is also wrong to make fun of the people of Khazakstan. Sasha Baron Cohen used their country as a generic backward country to which he attached many generic stereotypes, because he thought they are too distant to be aware of it. It was like talking about martians. But apparently they are aware of it, and they are offended, so you should respect their feelings.

I agree that people should be more thick skinned; and I don't believe that any offensive slip of the tongue should result in a whole festival of contrition; and it's okey to make fun of stereotypes and such; and I object to people being insincerely over-sensitive in order to score political points, but some things are more hurtful than others, and people should at least try to be sensitive. rejecting PC does not mean going to the other extreme. If PC should be rejected it is because it has become a fetish, the words became more important than the issues.

I think this post needs repeating.
Posted by: Marcus at April 11, 2007 01:49 AM:

"I need to respond to some the comments being made here. As a Black man, I took some offense to Imus' comments about the Basketball team, but it wasn't the end of the world. However, when I found out about Imus referring to Gwen Ifil, a Black woman and a White House correspondent at the time, as a "cleaning lady," and accomplished writer William Rhoden of the New York Times as a "qouta hire," I began to feel like the firestorm was warranted. These comments are hurtful because it reinoforces the feeling that no matter how much you accomplish, how much success you obtain, in the eyes of far too many, you're still (please pardon the expression, I hate it myself) "just a 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."

[1.] The Sean Bell [shooting], [2.] Katrina, [3.] some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, [4.] Shoshana Johnson's capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch -- they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America.

Well I'm all for attacking Hurricane Katrina with everything we've got. Though since Whites died at disproportionately high rates from the Hurricane maybe that wasn't such a great example. Facts, they really are pains in the ass, aren't they?

Even before I reply to this: you only counter ¼ of my examples -- and that's a basis for you to generalize me as fact-challenged? How does the remaining ¾ not indict you three-fold for making that generalization?

60% of the population of the Katrina-affected area was black -- barely qualifying for having its votes flushed in Florida 2000 by the Secretary-of-State/Bush-2000-campaign-manager. Michael Brown must be glad you don't disagree he did a heck of a job.

I don’t see anyone claiming that [Julie Michelle Bullard] proves that Southern lives are worth less than Northern ones though.

Maybe she had the misfortune of going missing the same time the runaway bride was "kidnapped" by Hispanics.

This discussion is to serious to allow it to be dragged down by he who must not be named.

Well, MSNBC has pulled the plug on their Imus TV simulcast.

I've been following the discussion on here, and on ESPN's Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, where I first learned about it. I didn't end up having the time to respond yesterday, though I did google to confirm some of what I'd heard about the history of Imus' show.

I don't know that I'm certain that one instance, even of such a both racist and sexist nature, should have been enough to result in Imus' firing (or, so far, losing his extra format). However, his case is not helped at all by his history.

As Marcus first introduced to this thread, Imus did call PBS/former NBC journalist Gwen Ifill "a cleaning lady" and dismiss New York Times journalist William Rhoden as "a quota hire", as cited by the National Association of Black Journalists when they called for the firing of Imus last week. (They appear to have been a little lost in the spectacle power of Sharpton and Jackson.) He's also quoted as calling Barak Obama "that colored fellow", though I haven't seen more specifics on that event yet, and mocked Maya Angelou.

It really doesn't help his case that he keeps employing Sid Rosenberg, either. In 2001, Rosenberg said that he told a friend hoping to see Venus and Serena Williams in Playboy "You've got a better shot at National Geographic." He was fired, but re-hired after apologizing. Rosenberg was fired again two years ago for making offensive remarks about Kylie Minogue, regarding her battle with breast cancer. (I haven't yet turned up the specific quote from this incident.) But, while no longer producer, he's back with the show again, contributing "It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors," to this latest disaster. The pattern of what Imus has both said and allowed - and enabled, with re-hirings - doesn't aid greatly in trying to persuade a corporation to keep paying and airing him.

Oh, and as far as "honky" and "cracker" go - honestly, I can't imagine feeling anything but the urge to laugh if I was ever called either of those, by anyone of any group. Those words simply don't have the same power as those of slurs against other groups, perhaps because they're applied to a group that hasn't often been the oppressed.

Clarify. Why is it better for a white guy to use a racist, sexist slur against black women? Yes, rap is not exactly the most respectful thing to anyone, but it's also different enough that bringing it up in the context of what Don Imus did to *excuse* him is stupid.

"... but it's also different enough that bringing it up in the context of what Don Imus did to *excuse* him is stupid."

It's not being brought up to excuse him. It's been stated over and over again that what he said was dumb as a brick and wrong on so many levels. It's just that double standards and hypocrisy are also being pointed out. If you wanna talk about race issues, then you talk in full, warts and all, about race issues. If you wanna play "attack whitey" all day, Rev. Al supports your efforts.

"It's just that double standards and hypocrisy are also being pointed out."

There is no double standard or hypocracy when blacks use words that were used by whites against blacks inside their own black culture. The context and intention are significantly different. There might be a reason to criticize rappers for using such language, but not on using a double standard.

There is a double standard that black males use slurs against women or whites or homosexuals etc. while opposing racial slurs being used by whites against them.

I've just googled the names "Channon Christian and Chris Newsom" as someone suggested, and it really is shocking stuff (basically four black men raped, tortured, and killed a white couple).

I have no doubt that, if the races of the involved were reversed, the media would likely give a more extensive and very different coverage of it.

Reading some of the comments in the blogs carrying the story, the amount of racism is frightening (people calling for genocide against blacks, Jesus). Maybe the media is right in not milking this story?

But I dunno... maybe more attention should be paid to the hostility that some blacks have against all whites and how this can be as noxious as the hostility some whites have for all blacks. Denial never helps.

When a white commits a race crime or advocates racist ideas, he is rightfully labelled a racist, a Nazi, and I think this is benefitial to whites as a whole. Because it paints the offender as an individual, something separate and not representative of all whites. He is a "Nazi", he isn't all whites.

With blacks it's the opposite. Blacks making offensive comments about whites are many times excused, the black person isn't called on it s harshly, "they have been oppressed and have a right to fight back," many seem to think. But this political correctness backfires somewhat. Because the person then gains a sort of legitimacy as a genuine representative of black people.

There isn't a term equivalent to "Nazi" for blacks, something to make them separate and distint from blacks in general who don't hate whites.

And then, when some blacks commit a hideous crime like the one I mentioned above, many misguided people blame everyone that has dark skin. Political correctness, by not allowing individual blacks to be criticized for appalling behavour, makes it so that a black man that commits a crime against a white is seen as representing all blacks.

And this is a very dangerous thing.

And that's why you haven't gotten that raise, Den

Crap.

And they said it was a budget issue.

Well said Rene.

"There is no double standard or hypocracy when blacks use words that were used by whites against blacks inside their own black culture."

I disagree. If you claim that a word is wrong, hurtful, unimaginably harmful and most not be used, then you do not turn around and use it yourself. You certainly don't claim that it's ok when you use it because when you use it it's meaningless and harmless. That's stupidity and hypocracy.

I pointed out in another thread (it may even have been on Myers's blog) that I had a large number of Jewish friends and coworkers when I lived in Florida. The word "kike" was offensive to them. They didn't like it used at or around them. Thing is, they wouldn't playfully walk up to and address each other by that word or asking questions like, "what's up my Kikes?" The word was off limits. The word was treated as something that was wrong to use AT ALL. I can respect that and them.

Many blacks who decry the use of the nigger by non-blacks will use it themselves. Many who claim to be offended by Imus or others will sometimes use the word in almost every sentence they utter and use that word to address other blacks. The word and its ability to offend is treated as a game to be played whenever there's something to be gained by someone. That act in and of itself removes any real meaning and power from it.

It's made even more powerless when the same people who claim that it can't be uttered use it in public or around you and others all the time. How can you claim that someone else's utterance of a word that you have used times to numerous to count around them is offensive or wrong just because they're saying it rather then you? If the word is so powerful and hurtful, then knock off using it yourself.

Me? I won't use those words (outside clinical discussions on racial epitaphs)or others that are directed at others. I treat them as though they are offensive and have power. But anybody who uses a word themselves or excuses another who uses it because it doesn't mean anything is a hypocrite if they then claim that the word is the be all and end all of hurtful words.

Well, MSNBC just decided to cut him lose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17999196/?GT1=9246

Even before I reply to this: you only counter ¼ of my examples -- and that's a basis for you to generalize me as fact-challenged? How does the remaining ¾ not indict you three-fold for making that generalization?

Actually, I also remarked, at length, on what I think might be the "some missing black girl" example. That would be 2/4 which would indict us equally if you use your logic and/or are insane. I have absolutely no idea how you could have missed it but having done so does add a chuckle or two at your complaining about being portrayed as factually challenged.

And, for the record I simply pointed out that Katrina was a poor example to support your argument, since the facts don't, to my thinking, support it. That is not quite the same as saying that you are, as a general rule, fact challenged. If you treat every single argument as something you must win or be forever labeled as some kind of loser you are going to end up going to ridiculous lengths to support your points long after it has become obvious that...oh. Right.

60% of the population of the Katrina-affected area was black -- barely qualifying for having its votes flushed in Florida 2000 by the Secretary-of-State/Bush-2000-campaign-manager. Michael Brown must be glad you don't disagree he did a heck of a job.

60% of the population. But only 50% of the victims. Whites--around 28% of the population but 42% of the victims. So, I would submit, a poor example for your argument. As for my agreeing that Michael Brown did a heck of a job...strangely, unlike the stuff I wrote about Alexis Patterson--the stuff you missed--I see nothing whatsoever in my comments about Mr Brown or whether or not he did a heck of a job. All things considered, calling you fact-challenged at this point would be an act of kindness.

You may have the last word on the matter, if you wish. Bored now.

I've just googled the names "Channon Christian and Chris Newsom" as someone suggested, and it really is shocking stuff (basically four black men raped, tortured, and killed a white couple).

I have no doubt that, if the races of the involved were reversed, the media would likely give a more extensive and very different coverage of it.

It may be tempting to agree, especially after the lack of attention to the "Wichita Horror" (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/index.html) but it's impossible to say for sure. A lot depends on what else is happening or if it gets captured on film or if some particular aspect of it just happens to hit the zeitgeist. Millions of animals die every second but we drop everything to see what happens to two particular whales trapped in ice. Why? Who knows? And it isn't something the media can always control. If they could they would every day but most of the stories they flog--heard about the big news regarding Kirsten Dunst and pot???--vanish into the ether.

Well I'm all for attacking Hurricane Katrina with everything we've got. Though since Whites died at disproportionately high rates from the Hurricane maybe that wasn't such a great example. Facts, they really are pains in the ass, aren't they?

Even before I reply to this: you only counter ¼ of my examples -- and that's a basis for you to generalize me as fact-challenged? How does the remaining ¾ not indict you three-fold for making that generalization?

Actually, I also remarked, at length, on what I think might be the "some missing black girl" example. That would be 2/4 which would indict us equally if you use your logic and/or are insane. I have absolutely no idea how you could have missed it but having done so does add a chuckle or two at your complaining about being portrayed as factually challenged.

You have absolutely no idea how I could have missed it because you apparently don't understand that you didn't cite the missing black girl in generalizing me as fact challenged.

And, for the record I simply pointed out that Katrina was a poor example to support your argument, since the facts don't, to my thinking, support it. That is not quite the same as saying that you are, as a general rule, fact challenged.

One questioned fact warrants the reply "Facts, they really are pains in the ass, aren't they?" That seems wrong everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

If you treat every single argument as something you must win or be forever labeled as some kind of loser you are going to end up going to ridiculous lengths to support your points long after it has become obvious that...oh. Right.

It's so obvious, you can't say what that obvious thing is.

So I'm not credible because I have no resolve to be wrong? Again, that seems wrong everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

[1.] The Sean Bell [shooting], [2.] Katrina, [3.] some missing black girl who was overlooked when Elizabeth Smart went missing, [4.] Shoshana Johnson's capture overlooked while Diane Sawyer courted Jessical Lynch -- they all demonstrate US retaliation against attacks like that, the $400 billion (and counting) arbitrary invasion of an oil-rich Muslim nation, will not done on behalf of black victims. Black life is cheaper than white in America....

60% of the population of the Katrina-affected area was black -- barely qualifying for having its votes flushed in Florida 2000 by the Secretary-of-State/Bush-2000-campaign-manager. Michael Brown must be glad you don't disagree he did a heck of a job.

60% of the population. But only 50% of the victims. Whites--around 28% of the population but 42% of the victims. So, I would submit, a poor example for your argument.

I never denied whites suffered disproportionately from Katrina. I said less is done on behalf of black distress than white. The fact that whites in a black-majority area suffered disproportionately from Katrina is not incompatible with my point.

You royally offended our host. It was something you should have known better than to do. You said you were wrong and you were sorry. Yet you continue to avail yourself of this forum. Why do you reserve for yourself a privilege you would deny to Imus?

Actually, now that my belly is full with dinner, I'm glad this issue was brought up, so that I may ask a a question. In order to insist that the protest does not match the true distress caused, you must disregard the distress presented: who should decide whether anyone's distress is legitimate or not?

Consider what has transpired here in recent months:

1. Peter informed me that I had offended him.
2. He did me the courtesy of specifying the boundary I had crossed: he is is the only David who is fair game.
3. I agreed with the boundary he cited, agreed the authority to manage that boundary was his by citing his perception making the offense authentic, and he had no problem accepting my word crossing his boundary was not my intent.

In contrast to this:

1. Bill Myers has referred to hate in my comments in recent months.
2. He refused to specify any boundary I had crossed.
3. As far as I don't take orders from him, I don't agree to being held acountable to a hidden agenda I'm not privy to, and I'm not sorry.

It's also convenient Jerry brought up his "kike is an offensive term" post:

1. Black co-workers informed Jerry he had offended tham.
2. They specified his calling them "boy" ridicules black people as a term denoting expectations of servitude under coersion.
3. Jerry denied the authenticity of their offense by characterizing their reaction as "spazzing" out.

You see, I have never denied offending anyone -- because, as Goethe said, optical illusion is optical truth. It's the perception of the offended that makes the offense authentic.

The reason I'm often not sorry is because, again, as far as I don't take orders from anyone who doesn't pay my wage, I don't agree to being held by acountable to a hidden agenda I'm not privy to. Bill Mulligan once sort've casually tried to establish a boundary along the line of "no one's kid was fair game" -- to which I replied I would've thought he was someone kid -- and he never referred to the attempt to establish that boundary again.

However, I've never, ever characterized anyone's reaction to what I've said as spazzing out or denied that I've offended -- because I simply don't comprehend arbitrarily denying what another person says is going on in his or her head.

Isn't the foundation of sociopathy the disredard for other people's boundaries and feelings? When black people tell you that what Imus said was severe -- and, while continuing to indulge in all of his wealth and privilege, Imus admits he was wrong -- who are any of you to say black people aren't experiencing the distress they say they are experiencing, that your word is the true account of a racism you aren't experiencing? Does food nourish anyone other than the person enjoying it? Will anyone die from anyone else's poisoning?

I've been lurking on this thread for a while and, as a 36-year old black man, figure I'd pitch me 2 cents into the bucket. First, though, we have to define 'racism' - it's not just the dilineation between white and black, or even saying one race can do things that another can't. Racism is the systematic dehumanization of an entire race of people based on the belief that one race is superior to another. You don't even need to go back to slavery, racism was part of American LAW until the 60's, well into the lives of my parents. There is no other group in America (except aguably Native Americans) that has suffered with the same width and severity as black people have. Still, like everyone else we just want to live our lives, do our jobs, and love our families without having to think about that stuff, but it always seems to pop up.
When a white person uses racial slurs against a black person, it carries some of the weight of the past and can't really be seen as anything other than a threat. By contrast, when a black person uses the same word, as much as I hate the practice, they're not using it as a insult - it wouldn't carry the same impact even if they did. It's NEVER been about the word, it's about the intention behind it.
I don't know if Al Sharpton was elected spokesman for black people everywhere in some vote that I didn't get an invite to, but I know that none of the rappers that have been discussed have gotten the job either.
Frankly, I agree that it's gone on too long, he's apoligized, I'll continue to think he's an ass. But if nobody made a stink, how would he know what he did was unacceptible?
I'd much rather be talking about 'Lost' right now.

Posted by: Troy Phillips at April 12, 2007 01:39 AM

It's NEVER been about the word, it's about the intention behind it.

Agreed.

And as I've said in prior posts, I believe it is impossible for a white person to understand the emotional impact of such an insult on a black person. And it is equally impossible for one who has not suffered from mental illness to understand my experience with depression. Or for a heterosexual like me to understand the torment experienced by homosexuals. Or for a man like me to understand what it is like for a woman who is constantly viewed as inferior to men despite her abilities. I could go on and on.

See the danger here? Playing "my pain is bigger than your pain" can lead to no good end, because there is no shortage of groups that can claim to have suffered some form of systematic oppression.

I agree that it is a good thing that Imus suffered a backlash. It shows that society is recognizing that racism is not okay. On the other hand, I believe a good deal of the outrage was manufactured by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom hide their personal agendas behind political ones.

Ultimately, MSNBC's decision to drop Imus' show troubles me. Not because I think it's any great loss -- Imus is a jackass. But I'd rather that ratings determine who is or isn't on the air, because once you've begun to draw lines based on the idea that "this or that idea is dangerous" you cross over into dangerous territory. Where does it stop?

Think of it this way: the civil rights movement of the 60s benefited what was then the relatively new medium of television. Images of peaceful black protestors being battered with water cannons, beaten by police officers, and mauled by police dogs were piped into everyone's homes. The white majority was forced grapple with their conscience, and this provoked important societal changes.

Imagine, however, what could have happened if those images and stories had been censored or suppressed. The civil rights movement could have had a much different -- and less positive -- outcome.

Posted by: Troy Phillips at April 12, 2007 01:39 AM

I'd much rather be talking about 'Lost' right now.

I understand. I'd rather be talking about anything other than Imus, who is an unrepentant shit-head. On the other hand, as much as I'd guess that black people probably grow weary of their race being an issue, I think it's important for us to discuss our thoughts and feelings on the subject. Honest communication helps promote understanding.

Whoops. The first sentence in the sixth paragraph of my prior post should've read, "Think of it this way: the civil rights movement of the 60s benefited FROM what was then the relatively new medium of television."

Rob Brown posted: For me, the word "ho" (which is used all the time) isn't offensive at all, but I can see how the description of them as "nappy-headed" might irk people other than Sharpton. "Ho" is just a pejorative, sometimes said jokingly.

Please keep in mind that just because it is in use "all the time" doesn't mean that it isn't offensive. For me, as a female, the use of the words "ho" "whore" "slut" are just as offensive as some of the other derogatory names used in examples above.

Do I think Imus should be forced to leave his job? Not necessarily, because there will always be someone ready to take his place. However, he should be hit upside the head (metaphorically) with a two-by-four, which is what I think has been happening.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 11, 2007 09:21 PM:

"I disagree. If you claim that a word is wrong, hurtful, unimaginably harmful and most not be used, then you do not turn around and use it yourself. You certainly don't claim that it's ok when you use it because when you use it it's meaningless and harmless. That's stupidity and hypocracy."

I think Troy Phillips explained it well above:

"When a white person uses racial slurs against a black person, it carries some of the weight of the past and can't really be seen as anything other than a threat. By contrast, when a black person uses the same word, as much as I hate the practice, they're not using it as a insult - it wouldn't carry the same impact even if they did. It's NEVER been about the word, it's about the intention behind it."

Jerry, I am certain that you, unlike someone who shall remain nameless, know that words don't have objective meaning, that their meaning changes in with context, and that some are appropriate in one scenario and inappropriate in another. This is one such case.

I'll give you another. In Israel extreme right wingers might call a left wing Israeli like myself a jew-boy (hebrew equivalent). What they mean is a jew who is weak, a victim. It's ugly language, which unfortunatly sometimes occurs in Israeli politics (on both sides), and I don't like it. But if a non-Jew said the same word it would be 10 times more offensive for me, for similar reasons to why Mr. Phillips finds the N word offensive when used by whites.

It is true that Jews don't go around calling each other kikes (although I've heard that some young Jews started imitating blacks in that regard, but this is second hand info). However, Jews have repeatedly played on stereotypical images of Jews in books, film, TV and comedy acts. The most famous example being Woody Allen. To a certain point I enjoy this kind of Jewish humor. But I must say that I sometimes get a little tired of those stereotypes -- it seems that the only time you see a Jew in popular entertainment is if he's fitting that stereotype. There are also stereotypes of Israelis, but they are more silly than offensive.

Another good example is this: American comedy often depicts a stereotypical image of the white american male as fat, ignorant, bear guzzling, Homer Simpson type. It's funny because it is satire by Americans on Americans. But if France were the ones making the Simpson's, then it would be less funny, even if not nearly as offensive as the N word.

Another related example is that some young Israelis started using the N word in a certain phrase. They don't understand the offensive historical impact of the word. A certain friend of my family who is half Jewish-American and half Jewish-Ethiopian was offended by this and tried to explain to these kids why it was inappropriate.

"Many who claim to be offended by Imus or others will sometimes use the word in almost every sentence they utter and use that word to address other blacks. The word and its ability to offend is treated as a game to be played whenever there's something to be gained by someone. That act in and of itself removes any real meaning and power from it."

I personaly feel that blacks are wrong to use that word, because it locks them into a certain image of themselves. But, it is their game to play, not ours. If blacks are sincerely offended by the word when used by whites -- like some on this thread have stated -- than we should respect it. On their hand we should reject those who try to score points by insincerely (or stupidly) accusing whites of racism or antisemitism or something else. I think normal people can tell the difference, just as they can tell the difference between a real racist and well meaning people like us who simply have an honest difference of opinion about the use of the N word.

Like Bill Myers said: "Honest communication helps promote understanding."

Sucks that Porctor and Gamble makes so many products, makes it harder to shop and boycott their products....

Some of the companies that pulled their ads are no big deal, I never did business with them anyway...

Freedom of speech is an illusion when Corporate America controls the airwaves and gets to pick and choose what everyone can hear...

Posted by: Mike at April 11, 2007 11:45 PM:

"Consider what has transpired here in recent months:

Peter informed me that I had offended him.
He did me the courtesy of specifying the boundary I had crossed: he is is the only David who is fair game.
I agreed with the boundary he cited, agreed the authority to manage that boundary was his by citing his perception making the offense authentic, and he had no problem accepting my word crossing his boundary was not my intent."

I think most people would have known that behavior was inappropriate to begin with. Most people would have not wanted to insult anybody to begin with, instead of deliberatly offending someone and then appologizing for crossing a boundary. Most people would have appologized profusly for hurting the feelings of our host accidently rather than for being unaware of an offioial boundary set by a host confident enough to allow people to insult him. And they would not have said that they recognize our host's authority to set boundaries, and thankinghim for explaining these boundaries, but would have regreted sincerely the accidental crossing of an obvious boundary of bad taste.

Bill Myers is right that honest communication helps promote understanding. But a certain level of mutual respect and empathy are also necessary.

A few observations:

Who appointed Al Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) spokespersons of African-Americans? To a surprisingly large extent I would say it is the (white) media. Whenever something racially sensitive comes up, it is an easy bet that what Sharpton has to say will be in the news. And part of the reason for that is that people like him make an easy target for ad personam attacks that frequently are used as a shortcut to discredit the opposition without addressing the issues. A not entirely dissimilar happened a few years ago when a lot of the media treated Michael Moore as the face of opposition to the Iraq war and the Bush administration to the exclusion of pretty much everybody else.

On the other hand, Sharpton does in this case voice concerns/objections that are apparently by many others, which is why the matter is not dismissed with a resigned "It's just Imus." Otherwise one could equally say: "It's just Sharpton, no need to get excited." But people are still getting excited, and it is not because they are unthinking Sharpton dittoheads. What is interesting however is how many of Imus's defenders exert themselves rationalizing and excusing his statement(s), are ready to take his "apology" at face value, while assuming that Imus's critics are either pursuing some (sinister) agenda or are stooges being used by those agenda-pursuers. So they assume the best of Imus and the worst of his critics.

Another interesting thing is how Sharpton not criticizing rappers *enough* apparently means that he approves of them and how some people seem to infer that rap and hip-hop songs are reprensentative of the way all blacks (or at least all black men) think and speak. Which is a bit like saying that hardcore pornography is representative of the way white men think and speak. (Both rap and porn are extremely lucrative industries with large audiences which are however frowned upon in polite society and exist in a sub-culture outside the mainstream).

And look at it this way: Al Sharpton does not have to convince middle-class white folk to dislike rappers etc., for the most part they already despise them. Imus is a rather different case, lots of respected people (who would not dream of appearing in a controversial rapper's video) have appeared as guests on his show, which is aired by major networks and endorsed by all sorts of commercial sponsors. And as the defensive reactions of quite a few people have shown, a large part of the news media establishment does seem to treat him as a colleague or equal, not as a ludicrous shock jock they look down on...

...I believe a good deal of the outrage was manufactured by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom hide their personal agendas behind political ones.

What do you base that belief on?

But I'd rather that ratings determine who is or isn't on the air, because once you've begun to draw lines based on the idea that "this or that idea is dangerous" you cross over into dangerous territory. Where does it stop?

You seem to be wondering if there should be a limit to ratings determining what's on the air. Decapitations have been presented as gathering substantial ratings in the Middle East.

I think most people would have known that behavior was inappropriate to begin with. Most people would have not wanted to insult anybody to begin with, instead of deliberatly offending someone and then appologizing for crossing a boundary. Most people would have appologized profusly for hurting the feelings of our host accidently rather than for being unaware of an offioial boundary set by a host confident enough to allow people to insult him. And they would not have said that they recognize our host's authority to set boundaries, and thankinghim for explaining these boundaries, but would have regreted sincerely the accidental crossing of an obvious boundary of bad taste.

And when most people eat, does that fill my belly? What do "most people" have to do with anything?

And, if you want to get into existential detail, I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter's boundary that only he is fair game. From his chastisement, I'm pretty sure if I keep my ridicule of Peter as making sense regardless of his responsibilities to real people, I can avoid the specific existential boundary he means to cite. That suits me fine, and I have no problem confirming the offense he had taken was authentic.

And, quite frankly, who are you that your reservation against the boundary Peter has drawn, that he is fair game, should interfere in the interaction of consenting adults?

I have to agree with Bill Myers that the decision by MSNBC to let Imus go is troubling on at least one level. Like Bill, I never really cared for Imus' show, but I do find it toubling that a small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air. I mean, if Imus doesn't have the right to be an ass, do we truly have freedom of speech in this country. Yes, I'm aware that the first amendment only applies to government actions (too bad the FCC seems to be above it) and his critics have the right to protest Imus as he does to be offensive in the first place. Still, I don't like the slippery slope that this leads to.

I was watching Keith Olberman last night and he went through a litany of offensive remarks made by a variety of other TV/radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jeff Beck, etc. He then put Al Sharpton on and essentially asked him if he was going to go after these others. Sharpton replied that his group will be monitoring all of these people.

As despicable as I find Limbaugh, Coulter, Bect, Hannity, etc, the idea of Al Sharpton targeting anyone he doesn't like for removal from the air chills me.

MSNBC decided that they didn't want to be associated with Imus anyone. That is their right, but the manner in which they were backed into that decision makes me wince.

Troy, you make some very good points, and I for one very much appreciate your comment. Many people...like Snoop Dogg, for one, have stated that's it's different when a word comes from a white man as opposed from a black man to another black man. They way Snoop and others ahve stated it, it doesn't make sense.

The way Troy states it, however, does. It's not enough that it sounds different coming from a white man...it's that many in the black community see it as a threat when a white man starts using certain words.

I don't agree with that, but I understand it better now. I don't agree with it because I don't think you can universally state that every time a white man uses some word that's considered off-limits that they mean it as a threat. I don't really know what Imus' personal views are, and given that he's a shock jock, I don't think it's fair to impute any personal feeling to his words. He says things to shock, because a goodly number of people find that entertaining.

Words only carry the meanings we give them. And the danger that I see in giving a word used by a certain race...aside from the irony in that such an action is itself racist and discriminatory...is that there will always be a risk that an innocent will be judged guilty simply because they used a word.

In Imus' case, this is probably a right decision for a wrong reason. I dislike shock jocks. I don't listen to any of their shows. I'm usually pretty happy when their shows go off the air, because I don't see what's so entertaining about making jokes about the misfortune of others. But let's face it...Imus has said worse things...about blacks and other groups...in the past. This comment was pretty innocent compared to his past. Why fire him now? I don't think we're any more sensitive, or wise. I think we're more media aware, and media manipulated. The news carried this event, made it a bigger story than it warranted, and the public devoured it. Imus is getting canned because he's an ugly old white guy who said an unfortunate thing, and he's made millions of dollar making fun of a lot of people. Anyone that's ever been offended by him is probably a little happy now.

Which still doesn't change the fact that the triggering event was a phrase that would seem tame on just about every hip hop and rap album published. You can tell me all day that it's different in that context, but that's not the point.

Here it is: If the black community wants the world to understand that certain words are hurtful to it, the first thing it has to do is stop using those words. Period. Humans look to actions to see what behaviour is appropriate. It's something ingrained in us from our earliest ages. Anyone with kids that's caught them doing something because they've seen their parents doing it knows this. I see it in my son as he tries to copy me washing my hair, or using the TV remote, or driving my car. He listens to what I say...such as "be gentle with the cats." But when he sees me throwing the cat off the bed because he's just dug his claws into my foot, then that behaviour becomes acceptable to him.

If these words really were as threatenting and hurtful, if they really do serve as a reminder that just 60 years ago we had laws sanctioning segregation, stop using them. Everyone. Because, if you say that they are threatening, but you still embrace their use internally, then it seems to me that that logical conclusion is that it's not the words at all that are really the problem.

It's the people using them.

And, if you really think about it, that's a much more frightening thought than any I've had in a good long while.

Like Bill, I never really cared for Imus' show, but I do find it toubling that a small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air.

And how did they coerce the network? By threatening to generate consensus to withhold support from their sponsors. Is capitalism only the capitalism of white people?

I mean, if Imus doesn't have the right to be an ass, do we truly have freedom of speech in this country[?]

So who's stopping Imus from being an ass? I don't have an MSNBC show -- I'd like to hear you deny I'm an ass.

Here it is: If the black community wants the world to understand that certain words are hurtful to it, the first thing it has to do is stop using those words. Period....

If these words really were as threatenting and hurtful, if they really do serve as a reminder that just 60 years ago we had laws sanctioning segregation, stop using them. Everyone.

Except for Morgan Freeman and the black guy who subbed for Rush Limbaugh, when we hear someone denying racism exists, we can count on him not being a black guy.

So here it is, Counselor: the "black community" should relent on the selective offense taken from the same racist behavior, when the "white community" can admit to the same degree as the black there is such a thing as racism.

Otherwise, what cause do you have to deny that the distress felt over the prospect of Imus's continued privileges isn't real?

PAD,

I hope you remember me from Dragon*Con 2006. I was the one who came to you about the upcoming J.J. Abrams-helmed STAR TREK joint. Having heard Don Imus' great dis towards the Rutgers Women's B-Ball team, I've begun to understand what you told me about timing. Imus has always been a maverick, but this time he really stepped in a big pile of dung, particuarlly since they've just come from winning their final four. Having raised the ire of both Revs. AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, he's in it waist deep.

There is such a thing as Freedom of Speech. In the case of Imus, however, this one instance slipped his mind: Just watch what you say, for the whole world is listening. Imus' great blunder has gotten me to take this to take your advice to heart if ever I ever have any future dealings with the media. This is also a "how not to" media moment to grow on.

Did anybody learn from John Rocker back in 1999 on how NOT to do an commentary?

First, let me correct myself and say that I meant "Glenn Beck", not "Jeff Beck". Second, I've avoided getting into it with Mike so far because I've really lost my taste for flame wars, but, wow, his latest response to me is so idiotic that I have to address it.

Is capitalism only the capitalism of white people?

Where did I say anything that could even be remotely interpreted as agreeing with that statement? Did you just completely miss the part where I said Sharpton and Imus's other critics have the right to express their disagreement?

So who's stopping Imus from being an ass? I don't have an MSNBC show -- I'd like to hear you deny I'm an ass.

No, you're doing a perfect job of showing that you are an ass.

The point is, they're using coercion to silence Imus and, by example, anyone else who might say something that offends them.

Except for Morgan Freeman and the black guy who subbed for Rush Limbaugh, when we hear someone denying racism exists, we can count on him not being a black guy.

Please point to any statement by me that could possibly be construed as saying that racism doesn't exist.

Couldn't find one? No? That's because I never said anything remotely like that.

So here it is, Counselor: the "black community" should relent on the selective offense taken from the same racist behavior, when the "white community" can admit to the same degree as the black there is such a thing as racism.

Again, did you completely miss my point about them having the same right to express their offense as Imus does to be offensive?

Otherwise, what cause do you have to deny that the distress felt over the prospect of Imus's continued privileges isn't real?

Once again, I challenge you to produce a single statement by me that supports this conclusion.

Posted by: Mike at April 12, 2007 08:24 AM

...I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter's boundary that only he is fair game.

With that, I think you've neatly summed up who you are and why it's not worth wasting time conversing with you, about you, or in any way acknowledging you.

I honestly do wish you well, Mike. But this will be my final response to you, about you, or in any way related to you.

Like Bill, I never really cared for Imus' show, but I do find it toubling that a small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air.

And how did they coerce the network? By threatening to generate consensus to withhold support from their sponsors. Is capitalism only the capitalism of white people?

Where did I say anything that could even be remotely interpreted as agreeing with that statement?

I asked a question in response to your post. I can't tell from the passage in question and your reply whether the answer is yes or no.

Please point to any statement by me that could possibly be construed as saying that racism doesn't exist.

Couldn't find one? No? That's because I never said anything remotely like that.

I never said you denied racism existed.

Again, did you completely miss my point about them having the same right to express their offense as Imus does to be offensive?

I didn't say you denied anyone's freedom of expression.

Once again, I challenge you to produce a single statement by me that supports this conclusion.

Again, it's fortunate for me I didn't attribute anything to you you didn't say, because I can turn down your challenge without making my point untrue.

I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter's boundary that only he is fair game.

With that, I think you've neatly summed up who you are and why it's not worth wasting time conversing with you, about you, or in any way acknowledging you.

I honestly do wish you well, Mike. But this will be my final response to you, about you, or in any way related to you.

As far as I don't take orders from you, I don't agree to being held acountable to a hidden agenda I have no access to.

The passage Bill cited requires the complete context:

And, if you want to get into existential detail, I am still mind-blind as to how I exceeded Peter's boundary that only he is fair game. From his chastisement, I'm pretty sure if I keep my ridicule of Peter as making sense regardless of his responsibilities to real people, I can avoid the specific existential boundary he means to cite. That suits me fine, and I have no problem confirming the offense he had taken was authentic.

Bill Myers -
But I'd rather that ratings determine who is or isn't on the air,

I wouldn't be surprised if this move has more to do with the # of advertisers that have quietly but quickly backed away from Imus' show in the last few days.

Menshevik

Love the handle. :)

Den -
Where did I say anything that could even be remotely interpreted as agreeing with that statement?

The major problem with The Nameless One... one of the major problems, for there are several... is that he has his own, backwards interpretation of how the world works that has nothing to do whatsoever with reality as it is generally accepted by rational people.

Point A leads to Point 3, and so forth.

I don't know if Al Sharpton was elected spokesman for black people everywhere in some vote that I didn't get an invite to, but I know that none of the rappers that have been discussed have gotten the job either.

Heh. Too true. I think it's partly out of some misplaced sense of guilt that the media is all too willing to designate someone of color as "a major figure" when, were he or she White, they would be more willing to ask for some evidence to support the contention.

I'd rather be talking about anything other than Imus, who is an unrepentant shit-head.

The dog-pile quality of this has almost done the impossible--I almost feel sorry for him and actually like the fact that he just came out swinging against Sharpton, asking when he will apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players!

At this point he may need to stop the apologizing and go on the offensive if he has any chance to come back from this. One negative fall out from all this--the lesson learned may be to not admit guilt, not apologize, but instead double down and go on full attack mode. At some point the public may flip...I know that reading Al Sharpton saying "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves" sends a bigger chill down my spine than anything old prune faced Imus could ever say.

However, Jews have repeatedly played on stereotypical images of Jews in books, film, TV and comedy acts. The most famous example being Woody Allen.

I never got that feeling--to me, Allen was not stereotyping Jews so much as New Yorkers or 98 pound weaklings (at least in his older, funnier movies). And I've known more than a few Woody Allen types and I don't think they were all Jewish. But I'll have to think on this.

Who appointed Al Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) spokespersons of African-Americans? To a surprisingly large extent I would say it is the (white) media.

Dang, you made the point I was going to, and better than I did. Oh well.

Den--just walk away. Nothing to see here. If you want to have any semblance of a real discussion with Mike you have to do it very early in the thread, before the inevitable breakdown.

Steve Govett, General Manager of the Colorado Mammoth, had a great point this morning on a local radio station:

Where are Sharpton and Jackson now that the charges against the Duke lacrosse players have been dropped?

And while I'm not 100% convinced nothing happened at that party, the (white) DA tried to throw them under the bus for his career.

Sharpton and Jackson did the same by vilifying these kids, and they had the convenience of Duke, a majority white university, being in the middle of Durham, NC, where there are as many African Americans as whites.

I've noticed something over the last few days. There seems to be an odd method behind the groupings going on. Some people are saying that various terms are exceedingly offensive, but not if the terms are used by the groups they're referring to. Now, call me crazy(I know you will anyway) but I don't usually lump rap artists in with 99 per cent of the black people I know as one continuous group. This said, saying that one relatively small subset taints the entire whole by using these words is, I think, silly. It would be like Den thinking I'm a bad-tempered ass because Bill O'Reilly is, and I'm another Irishman who works in TV, so I must be a bad-tempered ass. (The fact that I AM, in fact, doesn't change the point. I just wanna be called bad-tempered on my OWN merits.) The arguement also goes to the two Reverends speaking on behalf of ALL Black people.

Y'know, my Mikese isn't up to interpreting what he's saying. He's quoting me, but clearly not responding to me. Unless he's using an invisotext to put the actual quote he IS responding to between my quoted words and his response.

We've discussed before our opinions on boycots of offensive or unpopular speech...Dixie Chicks come to mind. I don't like it, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone their right to practice it. No one's suggested that Imus isn't entitled to practice his brand of entertainment. But his current sponsors certainly don't see the value in contining to support him, and at least one employer feels the same way. Imus is free to make all the off-color and offensive jokes he wants...he's just not going to get paid as much, or have as large an audience any more.

Personally, I find that to be an ineffective way to educate somone. Or rather, it's an effective way to tell someone how to avoid getting into this mess, but it does nothing to advance the causes of equality and respect that MLK was advocating. It doesn't advance his dream of blacks and white living together in a color-blind world. All it does is show in glaring detail how much more work we have to do.

And I'm not talking about Imus' actions anymore. Asking for someone to resign or get fired because they called you a name is not tolerance and understanding. Calling for them to be educated, calling for them to come spend time with you so they can understand why what they said was offensive, taking this opportunity to get them to close the gap between cultures just a little more, that's what you should do. Asking for revenge for something that happened two generations ago isn't going to solve anything.

Craig, I think the Duke case should be a thread all on its own, so let's wait until PAD decides to give us his opinion on it. (hint, hint).

I really have nothing else to say to Mike. It's clear that any attempt at a rational conversation with him is impossible. Just look at his latest response. Note that I made a point of saying that I'd a have a problem with any "small, self-appointed group (of whatever affiliation) can force a network to take a show off the air." He then interprets it to somehow mean that I think capitalism belongs only to white people.

I really don't know how I could have made my statement any clearer. If a white group tried to, say force Al Sharpton off the air for saying something offensive to white people, or if a Christian group tried to force someone off the air for saying something offensive to them, I'd feel equally as uncomfortable with that.

The rest of his latest post is just jibberish as he tries to backtrack and deny that he was putting words in my mouth. I hate it when Bill O'Reilly tries to do it to his guests, so I see no reason to acknowledge it when Mike does it.

Shrouded.

Sean, see PAD's comments on the other big thread now for a decent response to that line of thinking. I doubt anyone, me specifically, thinks that rap and hip hop speak for all blacks. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

But it is telling that you don't see much of folks like Sharpton and Jackson staging a protest of Death Row records trying to get their talent, executives, and marketing people fired because of the rough lyrics found on many of their albums. If you did see this, than the reaction to Imus' comments would be more warranted.

But you don't see that. You don't see prominant black leaders taking the black hip hop and rap community to task for the way they make money. You used to, a long while ago, and maybe they do still. But they don't call press confrences, and make it a public ordeal, like they have with this.

Sean: Don't worry, I won't compar you to Bill O'Reilly.

Just to make sure I'm clear: The other day, when I posted the statement about O'Reilly being a bitter, angry Irishman, that was a direct quote from my Irish sister-in-law, which according the rules on ethnic slurs, that makes it perfectly okay for you her to say it, right?

But it is telling that you don't see much of folks like Sharpton and Jackson staging a protest of Death Row records trying to get their talent, executives, and marketing people fired because of the rough lyrics found on many of their albums.

Well, would you want to protest at death row records??? It's the same reason you don't see too many animal rights activists protesting at a leather biker bar. Throwing blood at a rich old lady wearing a fur is a lot less liklely to result in one's ass getting kicked.

Good point, Bill. But, maybe Al Sharpton could protest Death Row Records from the safety of his radio studio.

"I don't agree with that, but I understand it better now. I don't agree with it because I don't think you can universally state that every time a white man uses some word that's considered off-limits that they mean it as a threat. I don't really know what Imus' personal views are, and given that he's a shock jock, I don't think it's fair to impute any personal feeling to his words. He says things to shock, because a goodly number of people find that entertaining.

Words only carry the meanings we give them. And the danger that I see in giving a word used by a certain race...aside from the irony in that such an action is itself racist and discriminatory...is that there will always be a risk that an innocent will be judged guilty simply because they used a word."

In an ideal world, if a white person said something that a black person found offensive, the black man would point out to the white man the sensitive associations of the word, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not realize them or mean anything bad. The whiteman in turn would sincerely apologize and try to refrain from using the word, but he would not be treated by the black man as a suspect racist. In an ideal world a radio show host that repeatedly used racial slurs would loose his audiences. But this is not an ideal world. However, if we want it to be better we should aspire to respect the sensitivity of blacks on this issue, while they should give us the benefit of the doubt that we are not racist.

"it seems to me that that logical conclusion is that it's not the words at all that are really the problem."

Posted by: Troy Phillips at April 12, 2007 01:39 AM:
"It's NEVER been about the word, it's about the intention behind it."

The word has a different meaning when spoken by whites or blacks. Why is it so difficult to accept that. It's not the word. We often complain in this blog about political correctness. But this is exactly the point. Political correctness made a fetish of the words while ignoring the intentions and context. I don't know what Imus intentions are. Ordinarily he would deserve the benefit of the doubt, but one of the posts above seems to suggest a pattern with him. Most white people deserve the benefit if the doubt, even when blacks feel they have overstepped somehow. But this has nothing to do with rappers or Chris Rock or one word or another. It's about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other.

------------------------

Posted by: Den at April 12, 2007 09:20 AM:

"First, let me correct myself and say that I meant "Glenn Beck", not "Jeff Beck".

Yes, I wasn't sure what you had against a british guitar player.

"Second, I've avoided getting into it with Mike so far because I've really lost my taste for flame wars, but, wow, his latest response to me is so idiotic that I have to address it."

Actually this is the time when ignoring him is most warranted.

Micha, it's not "It's about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other." That's what Sharpton and Jackson want it to be about. What it is about is Imus, and only Imus. He doesn't represent his whole audience. He probably doesn't represent even a large portion of his audience very well. If he's got a track record, then let that be the rallying cry. Not "he said somthing bad, can him." Instead, say "he's got a pattern of racially insensitive remarks, and it's time he said goodbye to his ability to spread such garbage to a wide audience."

The word has no meaning other than what is given to it. You can't say that "ho" means something when I use it, and another when Den uses it. You can look at how we both used it, and try and decide what we meant by it. But I might use "ho" in another totally different context, and mean something totally different by it.

I choose not to use the N word on these forums because I know there are people that are offended by just the sight of the word. But were I to use the whole word, it wouldn't be with the intent to offend, oppress, or anger. I'm not black, but you're telling me that I can't use the word without it having that effect. To a degree, I understand that, but I draw the line at the word having meaning independant of the context in which it is used.

It's not magic, it's a word. I can't say it and slap irons around the ankles of every black man within 20 feet of me (nor would I want to).

Micha,

You said something that you didn't mean in the way I'm, going to use it, but it underscores my problem with this issue.

"But, it is their game to play, not ours."

That's just it, it seems like IT IS a game that's being played. The selective outrage, the selective choice of targets of that outrage and the almost complete disregard for a word's meaning or offensiveness seemingly, "just because."

Yeah, I know that words don't always have objective meaning and that their meaning changes in the context of their usage. But it's almost laughable to see someone casting fire and brimstone about how any word is vile, despicable and beyond reproach and then turn around and use it themselves less then five minutes later as a happy, joking term or defend the use of the word as ok, fine and dandy and all good if used by certain people.

It's seems like a game when the people who claim offense then turn around and claim that they can't truly offend when they do the same thing. There are a number of blacks that I see regularly in the course of an evenings patrol because of where they work, catch a bus or just hang out. Imus has been a hot topic with them now as other flaps have been before. Thing is, they'll think nothing of making racially disparaging remarks about whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews and they do so on a regular basis. If they get called out on it, they're either not capable of being racist because only "people with power" can be racist and "blacks have no power" or they're just "telling the truth."

And that's not just from guys on the street. Some of the major power players in this flap have done and said the same thing. Sharpton has a very racist history and has had more then a few prominent Jewish figures call him to the mat over remarks he has made. The results? Those that support his crusades throw away their own moral standing and mindlessly defend him, he's never apologized in any meaningful way (if at all in some cases) and he's really lost very little for any of it.

See, along with the last twenty years growing super-sensitivity to racial epitaphs towards blacks has been a growing habit of excusing the same activity towards other groups by blacks. I've seen Sharpton and other black "leaders" say in interviews about other controversies that blacks cannot be racist and that they don't have the power to be truly hurtful. It's just them evil white folk that can do that.

It's been brought up that prejudice against blacks was part of American law for a good junk of U.S. history. That's true and it was wrong when it was done. Thing is, now we're playing the game in the other direction. If a white male assaults or kills a homosexual or black person, the additional charge of "hate crime" can be added to the event and the formal charges on the thinnest and flimsiest excuses. We've had cases where a black man has assaulted or killed whites while specifically ignoring any and all non-white targets and openly declaring he was doing so just because they were white. But that's not a hate crime. No, that's an oppressed minority acting out on his frustration from years of systematic disenfranchisement and marginalization.

There's also the issue of race in another case that's breaking into the news yesterday and tomorrow. Sharpton and some of the other "black leaders" that are piling on to Imus now were making the news show rounds this past year and making a race issue out of the Duke case. It became clear that the charges were a joke some time ago. Didn't matter. These evil, privileged, white male predators were guilty of doing this vile crime to this poor, underprivileged minority. Even when every bit of evidence screamed that these guys didn't do it, it didn't matter because the race card could be played.

The charges have been dropped. There isn't a case because there's no evidence of a crime, even her friend that was with her has basically said that she's lying and the "victim" has changed her story multiple times and lost any shred of credibility she may have been able to convince some people that she actually had. Are people going to demand that Sharpton and others apologize for their race based comments about/at whites during this case? No. And even if there was a call for it, Sharpton and others wouldn't back down, they would claim that they were still right in the overall scheme of things and they would lose nothing. They would still have there radio shows, editorial columns, pundit gigs and other revenue sources.

It's a game. It's a game of, "I can do it. but you can't. Ha-ha, neener neener."

I don't like the game, I say that I don't like the game and I don't play the game. As I've said, there are words that I will not use outside of clinical discussions on matters such as these. If I find a word to be highly offensive or racially charged, it's not in my own permissible vocabulary. I find it hypocritical of others to claim a word is offensive and racially charged but then turn around and condone its use so long as it's only used by "the right people" and no one else. If the word is as bad as people claim, then there is no "right person" to use it and no permissible circumstances for its day to day use. I don't like the game of the race card. I don't use it and I despise those that do so for their own power and money.

It's also a power game. It's been pointed out that there are other radio and TV personalities that say much the same thing on a more regular basis. Rush has a long history of racial comments and he currently has a parody song that he regularly plays that refers to Obama as "the magic negro." It's an old, racially charged word most often used by blacks towards other blacks.

They're "monitoring" guys like Rush and Savage. What does that mean? Nothing really. Imus was an easy target. He doesn't have the fanbase or support that Rush and Savage have. Imus is bounces around the #20 to #23 spots in total talk radio audience. Rush and Savage are the #1 and #3 spots. Sharpton is not going to get anywhere with attacking them. He can't get a victory there so he's not going to waste the capitol he does have on a failure. The Imus victory gets him more air time after the fact and more power. Failure gets him nothing.

It's a power game rather then someone doing the right thing for the right reason. It's an opportunist picking his spots.

"It's funny because it is satire by Americans on Americans. But if France were the ones making the Simpson's, then it would be less funny, even if not nearly as offensive as the N word."

I get your point, I'm just the wrong target for that line of reasoning. I love quite a few foreign comedies where Americans end up looking like the worlds biggest clowns. Plus I grew up on Godzilla films. White guys got cast as the villains a lot in those. What can be worse then being the people that wanna off the Big G?

You do raise a good point about the use of stereotypical images. But where is the line between stereotypical images and offensive images? Almost every character on TV and in movies is a stereotype. It actually does play into this conversation though.

I remember Keenen Ivory Wayans talking about catching flack about creating racially offensive stereotypes in skits that he did for In Living Color. He caught a lot of flack for the gossipy woman talking trash behind everybody's back and the dysfunctional family skits that he wrote. His reaction was surprise. He asked how they could be stereotypes when he was basically writing characters based on the people in his neighborhood and from his own family.

I thought they were funny because I knew those people as well and I knew them in lots of colors and creeds. Plus, it was a comedy. How many good, successful comedies involve only the best and most shining examples of humanity and portray them as flawless role models? Likewise, Matt Groening has said that the Simpsons are loosely based on his family. Matt just doesn't have to put up with the "race issues card" that Keenen did. Somehow, that's as wrong as anything else discussed here. Hell, I've yet to see a protest group claim that Shaun and Ed as portrayed in Shaun of the Dead were offensive stereotypes of the English/white male.

""It's NEVER been about the word, it's about the intention behind it."

Really, then why can't white comedians use the word with the same intention as black comedians? Why will a white rapper like Eimeneim (sp?) say that he won't use that word (while claiming that the word faggot isn't the least bit offensive) in raps because it's offensive, but he works with black rappers who throw it around like it means nothing at all? How come Richard Pryor could point to a guy being silly and say, "that nigga's crazy," and laugh about it with him afterwards while a white guy using the word the same way and with the same intentions might well be killed two minutes later?

It's not just about the intention behind it. It HAS been and IS sometimes just about the word.

My point is simple. Don't use the word if it's so vile and hurtful. If you use it so cavalierly and easily while claiming that it means nothing, you undercut your own argument. That doesn't just go for blacks either. It goes for every group.

___________________________________________________________________________

Huh, just as I was finishing typing this, Niger Ennis was on MSNBC saying basically everything I just said. So, if anyone says that I don't/can't understand or can't really know what I'm talking about because I'm not black, how do they answer him saying it too? Truth is truth no matter where it comes from or who says it.

___________________________________________________________________________

*Sigh*

And once again people are allowing Mike to highjack a thread and make it, rather then a general discussion on race and racial terms, all about him and his warped Planet M Us (the evil, vile, predatory, race privileged few) VS Him (the noble genius and ultraistic defender of the underprivileged and downtrodden) delusions.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:

"Micha, it's not "It's about the way whites and blacks and other groups interact within their communities and among each other." That's what Sharpton and Jackson want it to be about."

If it was only about Imus we wouldn't be having this discussion. This discussion is happening because of the way this event reflects and highlights race relations in the US. There are real concerns both by whites and blacks that go beyond Imus or Sharpton, it is better if these issues are recognized.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:

"What it is about is Imus, and only Imus. He doesn't represent his whole audience. He probably doesn't represent even a large portion of his audience very well. If he's got a track record, then let that be the rallying cry. Not "he said somthing bad, can him." Instead, say "he's got a pattern of racially insensitive remarks, and it's time he said goodbye to his ability to spread such garbage to a wide audience."

Fair enough. I believe that most black people who wrote on this thread did just that. If they criticized Imus, it wasn't for his words out of context but for a pattern. But by bringing in the issue of rappers and black comedians the discussion moved on to a wider issue. The incident of Imus is important just as an event relating to this wider issue.

1. "The word has no meaning other than what is given to it."

2. "You can't say that "ho" means something when I use it, and another when Den uses it."

3. "You can look at how we both used it, and try and decide what we meant by it."

4. "But I might use "ho" in another totally different context, and mean something totally different by it."

Exactly. statements 2-4 seem to contradict statement 1.

One person might use the word 'ho' to refer to his beloved girlfriend simply because he has been influenced too much by hip-hop. Another might wish to treat nice collage athletes as if they were garbage. While a third might be sliding down a chimeny giving presents. In the first case there was no negative intention, although I would suggest that this hypothetical person's girlfriend should point out to him that it's not nice to refer to women as 'hos,'even if he ddn't mean anything by it, because it evokes a certain image in the mind of ost listeners.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 01:01 PM:

"I choose not to use the N word on these forums because I know there are people that are offended by just the sight of the word. But were I to use the whole word, it wouldn't be with the intent to offend, oppress, or anger. I'm not black, but you're telling me that I can't use the word without it having that effect."

The N word has often been used by whites to refer to blacks as inferior. It is therefore understandable that when a black man hears the word spoken this is the first association that comes to his mind. However, I believe that were you to speak the word, I believe it would be nice if a black person would ignore hi first gut reaction -- understandable as it may be -- and give you the benefit of the doubt until he can understand from the context what you were trying to say, at which point I am ertain he would find out that you had no intention of putting blacks down. But I also think you should be sensitive to the sensitivity of blacks, which you apparently are, since you refrain from using the offensive word.

"To a degree, I understand that, but I draw the line at the word having meaning independant of the context in which it is used."

Which is exactly the point. The meaning is not independant of context. Although I personaly disapprove of the context of the use of the word by rappers, it is a different context than when it is used by blacks.

"It's not magic, it's a word. I can't say it and slap irons around the ankles of every black man within 20 feet of me (nor would I want to)."

1. The sound of thunder cannot kill, but a person who has post traumatic stress, the sound of thunder can have a profound effect.

2. Again, as a lawyer you are probably aware how powerful words are. The racist society that enslaved blacks was created by words, sustained by words, and destroyed by words. This is exactly why freedom of speech is so important. But it is also why we shuld recognize that words have power.

-------------
Every once in a while a scandal emerges in Israel over whether the Israeli symphony should play Wagner's music. Apparently for some Holocaust survivors this music evokes very harsh assossiations, yet fand of classical music really want to hear it. I believe that Holocaust survivors should not prevent the symphony from playing Wagner. But we should recognize that their emotions are very real in that regard.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 12, 2007 01:16 PM

If they get called out on it, they're either not capable of being racist because only "people with power" can be racist and "blacks have no power"...

And right there I think you've found the heart of the matter, Jerry. This issue has to do with the definition of a word... just not the "N" word.

According to the Microsoft Encarta North American English Dictionary, racism means "animosity towards other races" or a "belief in racial superiority." Neither definition requires the power to oppress. Those who claim otherwise are distorting the language in order to excuse hypocrisy and double-standards.

Does racism still exist? Yeah. Does it still hurt minorities? Oh, yeah. And a number of whites rightly feel badly about that -- myself included. Unfortunately, some individuals belonging to minority groups -- not all, not even necessarily the majority, but too many to be deemed an insignificant number -- have learned to play that to their advantage.

Is everything hunky-dory for blacks in today's society? No. Absolutely not. But we're not going to solve today's problems by acting like the progress of the last forty-plus years never happened, or pretending that blacks are still completely and utterly powerless in our society.

I mean, for Christ's sake! If blacks were still powerless, Imus would still be on MSNBC.

"I mean, for Christ's sake! If blacks were still powerless, Imus would still be on MSNBC."

And we wouldn't be talking about a black man as a very real contender for winning the '08 election.

Look, I'm long winded and all, but my point boils down to a simple one. Don't say those words. Don't use negative, hurtful racial discriptions. Just don't. Anyone.

Don't use them to hurt and don't use them yourself and claim that they mean nothing. Carve the damned words out of our public discourse and bury them in their damned graves once and for all.

Den--sorry for hijacking some of your lines. But, seeing as how my temper's been REALLY short last few days, I was struck by the connection.

And it figures. PAD WOULD say the things I was trying to only much more clearly and eloquently, not to mention in a far less verbose manner.

Crap.

Micha, I know this is an oversimplification, but it wasn't words that ended slavery...it was over 600,000 deaths and untold damage to our fledgling country that put an end to slavery. The word thing was just a formality.

You're correct, I do understand the power of words. I also understand the ease with which an outside party can take someone else's words and put them to a use never intended by the original speaker. My #1...that Den and I can't use the same word and have you tell us it means something different when we use it...isn't stated very well. And what I meant to say is probably too complex for me to say it well without spending more time than I really should while at work.

But context really is everything, and as ugly as it may be to suggest this, the context Imus was using...as nearly his whole show is about...was humor. Vulger, shock jock, offensive to everyone, humor. I've seen statements here and on TV that suggest that Imus really thinks that the Rutgers players were hos...taking him literally at his word. It's like saying I take my advice from Fred Flintstone. Imus puts on a show...anyone that takes him seriously should be slapped.

An no, I don't really mean that. It's supposed to be funny. But the fact that many won't find my statement funny doesn't mean that I'm a mean-spirited person that wants other people slapped. Contextually, it's meant as a joke. If it's not funny, I should apologize and not try to be funny that way anymore.

In Imus' case, he's made statements like this before. Trying to be funny. I'm sure he's gotten some complaints, but on the whole, his audience kept tuning in. Either they also thought it was funny, or they didn't care that it wasn't. But they kept him on the air.

Part of me is starting to wonder, now that the backlash has started to hit, how will his fans react? Will the millions of people that listen to him pay attention to the sponsors that have pulled out, and stop buying from those sponsors? At first, I thought Imus himself would ask that his fans not retaliate in any way, but now I don't know. The response seems to be so much greater than the offense, I can't help but think that this isn't the last ripple we've seen.

It is necessary to distinguish between 3 issues.

1) The issue of blacks inside their own community using the N word. In that sense I completly disagree with people here who consider it a form of hypocracy. It really and sincerely means something different for them when blacks or whites use them, and I find their reasoning credible. I don't feel oppressed by being denied the right to use that word as freely as them, since I understand the distinction. And I don't believe I have the right to demand that they bury the word completely. It is up to them how to deal with the collective psychological effect of that word on them. I may have an opinion; I'm entitled to voice it; some blacks might agree with me, but ultimatly it's an internal issue.

You are probably unaware of it, but many Israelis (not myself) react to the psychological-historical effect of the holocaust by making the most terrible holocaust jokes. Really dark humor. I was with a guy in Europe, whose grandmother, I think, was a survivor. For this guy, every trainyard, every bus, everrything was holocaust. It was amazing. But maybe it's his way of handling scars passed on from his grandmother. Sometimes you have no choice but to accept that.

2) the issue of racism or other forms of prejudice by blacks toward others. In that respect I am in complete agreement with you. If blacks talk or act in a racist manner toward other groups it is hypocracy, and they deserve the same treatment as whites. No free passes.

I believe that wheras Western white society has gone through a process (incomplete as of yet) of rejecting racist attitudes, the groups who were the victims have not dealt with the racism in their own system: this is true of Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Asians etc. My crazy right wing American uncle wrote to me complaining that you are not supposed to say Indian anymore. I answered him that you are not allowed to say kikes anymore either.

3) The thid issue is the issue of people using the race card to score political points. I think I'm on the record on this thread saying how much I disapprove of the practice, and I completely agree with you on this too. This not only causes harm to politics in general, it also causes harm to the very same issues these people claim to be fighting for.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 12, 2007 02:08 PM:
"Micha, I know this is an oversimplification, but it wasn't words that ended slavery...it was over 600,000 deaths and untold damage to our fledgling country that put an end to slavery. The word thing was just a formality."

And what inspired people to go to war and oppose slavery? Words. Who sent them to war? A president elected because of and by words. And what were the laws that allowed and then disallowed slavery? Words. And what were the Jim Crow laws? Words. And so were the preaching words that endoctrinated southerners that Blacks were inferior, and the preaching others to go oppose segregation. The constitution is words. The Gettisburg address is words. The 'I have a Dream' speech is words. Words convey ideas that motivate and influence people. They are also used in laws and the media in order to structure culture.

The truth is I don't know enough Imus to decide in his specific case. I don't know the history of his work, or his style, or the context. I only got involved in this thread when it went beyond Imus. I can only talk of basic principles. Like I said, it might be appropriate to criticize Imus for what he said, even if it was a joke, or an accident. But I do not support public floggings.

Look, I'll talk about something I know. When Mel Gibson said some nasty things about Jews when drunk, I didn't want a whole penance act either. Based on what I know about him, I do tend to believe that his words represent real antisemitic attitudes. But I don't care. I don't want him to go around apologizing to self appointed Jewish leaders and then going back to his holocaust denying father and crying how the jews forced him through an ordeal. I don't want to boycot the guy or anything. If he's antisemitic it's his problem, and he should solve it himself. But I can't say I wasn't affected by his words, or that I don't look at him differently now. But I still watch his movies sometimes.

"Really, then why can't white comedians use the word with the same intention as black comedians?

Because they are not black and the totallity of their experience is different. I can't talk about the experience of Americans the same way that you do either. I'm not American. However, I'm not aware of how relations are among the comedians, but I think comedians like Sarah Silverman for example can get away with a lot on this issue. Maybe her black comedian friends accept that her intentions are not racist.

"Why will a white rapper like Eimeneim (sp?) say that he won't use that word (while claiming that the word faggot isn't the least bit offensive) in raps because it's offensive, but he works with black rappers who throw it around like it means nothing at all?"

Eminem should be as sensitive to the feelings of homosexuals as he is to the feelings of his black friend. He shouldn't be less sensitive to both.

"How come Richard Pryor could point to a guy being silly and say, "that nigga's crazy," and laugh about it with him afterwards while a white guy using the word the same way and with the same intentions might well be killed two minutes later?"

It is wrong to kill people for speech. People who use violence to silence other people are showing disrespect to other humans, and therefore have no right to expect respect themselves.

You know, some thought has to be given to the TV executives who thought it was a good idea to simulcast a shock jock radio host's show LIVE on TV. This is MSNBC we're talking about, which I always figured was a halfway decent news program. This wasn't E! broadcasting taped Howard Stern shows at 11:00 at night.

Something like this was bound to happen, didn't they think for one minute that it might???

Another thing.... why aren't record producers and movie executives taken to task for signing these questionable thugs to record/movie deals? Why glorify the subculture of garbage that they revel in? Just because it's in a song shouldn't make talking about 'slappin' bitches and pimpin' ho's' or 'shootin' a cop with my 9' anymore acceptable than if Joe Q. Average did that on the street.

And you have to condsider that a majority of white people buy these rap albums. So are Sharpton and Jackson saying it's fine for a white guy to buy the album, just don't sing along with the lyrics in your car????

This blows my mind....

If these so-called spokesmen of their race would take more time actually taking these thugs to task about their behavior and attitude rather than chastising whitey, things might start making progress. Bill Cosby took these thugs to task and was chastised by his own people... how ignorant is that?

Black kids that rise up from the ghetto and go to college and make a good life for themselves are routinely made fun of if they ever go back to visit their old neighborhoods.

Ignorance and contrarian attitudes are never going to change the perceptions of people.

"And what inspired people to go to war and oppose slavery? Words. Who sent them to war? A president elected because of and by words. And what were the laws that allowed and then disallowed slavery? Words. And what were the Jim Crow laws? Words. And so were the preaching words that endoctrinated southerners that Blacks were inferior, and the preaching others to go oppose segregation. The constitution is words. The Gettisburg address is words. The 'I have a Dream' speech is words. Words convey ideas that motivate and influence people. They are also used in laws and the media in order to structure culture."

All true...but I'll get back to your use of thunder in my statement about words not being magic. Words alone, in every single one of your examples, are worthless. Without an audience to hear them, be inspired by them, to act on them, they have no power at all. And if they fail to motivate, to inspire, they are truly powerless.

Thunder is totally different. If lightning strikes close enough to you, the sound energy of the thunder it makes can damage youe ears and other organs. Even without an audience...no people close enough to hear it...thunder alone can have an impact.

It's not as simple as saying the words have power, and thus we must be careful how to use them. I once was in a discussion with a Born Again friend, on the importance of showing reverance to God. I asked her what if we found a people that believed in God, only their word for God was Bozo? Bozo is hardly a word of reverance in our language...but would it really matter to God what we call him? Isn't it more important what our tone and intent are? But if we decide as a people that we can't call God Bozo, where does that leave my hypothetical people?

Imus isn't a white plantation owner. So far as we know, he doesn't own slaves. He doesn't oppress blacks...it'd be interesting to note if he has any black producers, or ever takes on a black intern. He's not advocating for a return of slavery or segregation. He made a joke about a women's college basketball team. Calling them "hos" is funny...because they clearly are not hos. And it involves the hip hop/rap community because without that community using such terms, Imus doesn't make that comment. Unless he really is racist.

See, that's the thing about the whole "it's ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it" thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word...take the N word...and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing. But when the group that is/should be most offended by the word starts using it in a casual manner, it muddies the issue. Is it ok, or isn't it? Does it really offend your, or doesn't it? And if the black community has this rallying cry against racism, but then applies a racially-based double standard to language, how is anyone to take their cries against racism seriously when they embrace discriminatory racist practices?

CBS cans Imus.

I don't feel sorry or Imus in the last, but I also give the finger to Sharpton and Jackson because they're going to think they've just done some wonderful thing for the rights of African Americans, when it's anything but.

Thank God they fired him, now all racism is sure to disappear since Imus was obviously the dubious ringleader of worldwide anti race relations. Jesus, this changes nothing! That's why I said before: WHO CARES!!!!

Plus I grew up on Godzilla films. White guys got cast as the villains a lot in those. What can be worse then being the people that wanna off the Big G?

yeah, remember the White Guy from the Kingdom of Seatopia in Godzilla vs Megalon? The one with the toga? Made me ashamed of my white face for weeks.

Huh, just as I was finishing typing this, Niger Ennis was on MSNBC saying basically everything I just said.

Wow, man, you just had the opportunity to make the all time worst typo ever and you managed to avoid it. Close call, though.

Best comment on the brouhaha so far courtesty of Andrew Sullivan:

Culture Shock
I wish I'd taped the phone conversation I had today with the editor of the Sunday Times in London when I had to explain exactly what "nappy-headed hos" were. He had images of garden tools crowned with diapers.

"Wow, man, you just had the opportunity to make the all time worst typo ever and you managed to avoid it. Close call, though."

Been done lots of times though. I've seen the man speaking before and he mentioned how many times it's been spelled wrong in papers, on name tags and on TV scrolls. He was on TV and telling a story about how awkward some poor guy felt after looking at his notes wrong and then saying it wrong when anouncing him to a crowd.

Seemed to have a good humor about it at this point.

"All true...but I'll get back to your use of thunder in my statement about words not being magic."

Please replace the metaphor of thunder with something that can cause no harm on its own. A baloon exploding? No. It could hit sombody in the eye, blind him, terrible.

"Words alone, in every single one of your examples, are worthless. Without an audience to hear them, be inspired by them, to act on them, they have no power at all. And if they fail to motivate, to inspire, they are truly powerless."

Wouldn't it be nice if only the good words had audiences, inspired and motivated people? But the bad words have audiences too. We see it all the time. Words are rarely alone.

"It's not as simple as saying the words have power, and thus we must be careful how to use them. I once was in a discussion with a Born Again friend, on the importance of showing reverance to God. I asked her what if we found a people that believed in God, only their word for God was Bozo? Bozo is hardly a word of reverance in our language...but would it really matter to God what we call him? Isn't it more important what our tone and intent are? But if we decide as a people that we can't call God Bozo, where does that leave my hypothetical people?"

That's a good example. The same word means two different things when spoken by members of two cultural groups. Would your hypothetical people be justified in suspecting that whever you utter the word Bozo, you are not showing reverence to their god, but actually making a joke at their expence? I think they should give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect people like that would have had a long experience of their god being mocked.

As you may be aware, in Judaism it is not allowed to utter God's name Jehova. This caution with the name of god has reached over the years a rather exagerted level of fetish, which my Mom, who had religious education, likes to make fun of. It reached a point where English speaking Jews right G-d instead of God. Now, as a secular Jew I find it silly. And I have no problem saying the word Jehova. However, were I with religious Jews I would at least try not to offend them by saying it. It cost me little to be condering of their concerns, so long as they do not seek to be too oppresive on their part, and try to get me to stumble on every word, and be as scrupulous as they are. I will say God and not G-d. And I think they will not be happy about it, but nor will they go out of their way to be offended.

"Imus isn't a white plantation owner. So far as we know, he doesn't own slaves. He doesn't oppress blacks...it'd be interesting to note if he has any black producers, or ever takes on a black intern. He's not advocating for a return of slavery or segregation."

Racism is more than a return to slavery. One of the black posters on this thread felt that his repeated jokes at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success. His impression could be wrong, but his feelings are valid. And if it were his intention, than he is racist, even if he's not advocating restoring slavery.
Similarly, when Mel Gibson was not saying, even when drunk, that Jews should be sent to gas chambers. Nor was he a guard i one. Yet when he said that Jews are responsible for all wars, to me his words were echoing poisonous antimsemitic attitudes that as much as I'd like seem still to linger in this world to this day (and the situation of Jews is much better than blacks). So, he was drunk, and he appologized, and I don't really want to make a big deal out of it, and I'm not interested to have an ordeal of guilt. But these feelings are real, and I think they deserve respect. I deserve the benefit of the doubt that I'm not trying to make an insincere political gain.

"And it involves the hip hop/rap community because without that community using such terms, Imus doesn't make that comment. Unless he really is racist."

Maybe he is racist, maybe he's not, I don't know. I haven't been following his work really. Which is why I can't say if it was a joke, a good joke, a sincere joke, or a bad one. I certainly agree that ít is wrong to assume every white person is automatically racist. But he is not an impressionable suburban white kid that was influenced by listening to too much hip-hop, and I doubt he would find him self speechless if the hip-hop community did not suply him with derogatory terms.

"See, that's the thing about the whole "it's ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it" thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word...take the N word...and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing. But when the group that is/should be most offended by the word starts using it in a casual manner, it muddies the issue. Is it ok, or isn't it? Does it really offend your, or doesn't it? And if the black community has this rallying cry against racism, but then applies a racially-based double standard to language, how is anyone to take their cries against racism seriously when they embrace discriminatory racist practices?"

I don't agree with you that the the water is muddied. You know very well the level of appropriateness of the N word, despite hip-hop, just as you know not to use the F word while visiting a first grade elementary school despite watching HBO, or Mafia movies or whatever. I don't think it is difficult to understand that using the word in one context is OK, and it's not OK in another. Nor do I consider it racism on the part of blacks that they ask you not to say a word they findd offensive when spoken by an outsider. I don't consider it oppressive to be sensitive to their feelings in this. If the sensitivity and respect are not reciprocal, that's something worth complaining about. I also think it's absurd to suggest that it is somehow the black community that is keeping the N word alive while white America is ready to bury it.

You should take their cries against racism seriously if and when they deserve to be treated seriously. When that occurs it should not be their cries against racism but our cries against it.

I don't believe the rreal issue here is the N word or 'ho'. I believe that white Americans such as yourself have certain problems concerning the attitude of black America toward you, just as they have their complaints. I believe the real feelings behind this discussion are sincere and valid and should be addressed. The language used by rappers or comedians is not the real issue.

Heh. The leader of the Seatopians was the first guy I thought of when the idea of white Godzilla villains came up. Not the most impressive dude ever....

And when I saw that Jerry had the last post here, I thought he was about to break news in this thread about Imus about two hours after it was already reported, like he did last night ;) Should Imus have been fired? I don't know; but there was a pattern, not just this one, highly-publicized incident. And CBS does have the right not to be associated with a program which appears to support a racist, and sexist, atmosphere (though maybe they should've considered that before airing a "shock jock" program, or addressed the issue before it became such a show).

CBS cans Imus.

And IMO, the whole flapdoodle goes over the top.

Yes, Imus' comment was hurtful and mean - even more so in context. However, this isn't exactly new. How does CBS think Imus became known as a "shock-jock" in the first frakkin' place?

Censure him, sure. Have his sponsors re-examine their contracts, okay. Fine him? Well, not sure that's appropriate, but hey, I can see your point. Make sure he knows how wrong he was to say those things.

But firing? Effective immediately, without even giving him a chance to shop his show around to other networks, effectively depriving him of the only livelihood he's probably capable of earning?

I think that's a bit drastic for a set of racist comments...

See, that's the thing about the whole "it's ok in this context when WE say it, but not in that context when YOU say it" thing. It muddies the water. If everyone stops using a word...take the N word...and if everyone regards it, always, as a bad thing, it stays a bad thing.
**************
SER: I had a fairly racist teacher in grammar school who could say Martin Luther King in such a way that it dripped with as much venom if not more than "nigger." Conversely, when Richard Pryor (before he abandoned the word) would talk about the "niggers" he grew up up with, he embued those people with such humanity that the word had no bite. I'd like to think we're all smart enough to know that words aren't just letters on a page. They're about the emotions behind them. That's why I thought Spike Lee as full of it when he called out Quentin Tarantino on his use of "nigger" in his films. Could anyone really see PULP FICTION or JACKIE BROWN (especially the latter) and say that Tarantino is racist becaue of the use of that word? He honestly did remove the power from it because it essentially just became "slang" (the urban version of "dude").

When Isaiah Washington was criticized for his use of the word "faggot" (and later Anne Coulter), everyone suddenly latched on the word as if it was said in a vacuum. Washington called a colleague "faggot" to demean him, to basically make him *just* that word, with all the assorted baggage therein. Coulter did the same thing.

I think of female friends of mine who might call each other "bitch" when one says something particularly catty. I compare that to someone angrily shouting out "bitch" at one of them in a bar if she doesn't return his attentions.

I love words. And I would hate to see us lose words because some people *misuse* them. In fact, hate is the ultimate issue here. Washington was angry and used the word as an epithet. Michael Richards was angry and used the word as a weapon. Imus was, well, I guess just a jerk -- we should first examine the motivation behind the use of a word rather than simply have a reaction to the fact that the word was used at all.

I think that's a bit drastic for a set of racist comments...
*************
SER: Imus isn't going to starve, so it's hard for me to pity him. Also, call me cynical, but this is business. He was fired because CBS and NBC didn't want anything to do with him -- he was a PR nightmare. He was basically costing them money -- if not directly but indirectly by the negative press they would have to counteract.

If you make your living in the media, it's your job to keep all of that in mind.

Posted by: Micha at April 12, 2007 07:41 PM

One of the black posters on this thread felt that his repeated jokes at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success. His impression could be wrong, but his feelings are valid.

Micha, you are in essence arguing that hurt feelings should count for more than the reality of a given situation. I realize that you are trying to distinguish between feelings that are valid versus those that are not, but who is to say which is which? Feelings aren't governed by logic or reason. Sometimes even the most rational among us will feel angry, fearful, sad, or what have you, only to realize later it was without good cause. Feelings are neither "valid" nor "invalid." They simply are what they are.

This is why emotion, while undeniably an integral part of the human experience, is a completely unsound basis upon which to run a society. Feelings are idiosyncratic. What sets off one person may not set off another. Running a society depends on a more consistent, logical, and predictable framework. Feelings cannot provide that framework. Only logic and reason can do that.

Posted by: Micha at April 12, 2007 07:41 PM

But these feelings are real, and I think they deserve respect.

Micha, all feelings are real. I don't want this to become a discussion about me, but let's just say that suffering from ADHD and depression made for an... interesting... adolescence for me. I still carry some of the scars. One of the lingering after-effects is the constant fear that my friends will turn on me. My closest friends can tell you that that doesn't make it easy to be my friend! Those feelings are "real" in that I really feel them. But my friends these days are GOOD friends -- so the feelings may be real but they nevertheless have no basis in reality.

We should try to be sensitive to people's feelings. But not to the point where we set a norm that hurt feelings create a societal debt to those who feel aggrieved.

By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations. These were individuals who weren't remotely involved with drugs. It didn't matter to this bastard. Yet I do NOT remember an outcry commensurate with that I'm hearing over this Imus shit. I find that interesting that so many of us feel can feel triumphant for punishing a man who may have hurt some feelings -- but not nearly as many people pay attention when someone is actually ruining lives merely because those lives were housed within skin of a different color.

Really, then why can't white comedians use the word with the same intention as black comedians? Why will a white rapper like Eimeneim (sp?) say that he won't use that word (while claiming that the word faggot isn't the least bit offensive) in raps because it's offensive, but he works with black rappers who throw it around like it means nothing at all? How come Richard Pryor could point to a guy being silly and say, "that nigga's crazy," and laugh about it with him afterwards while a white guy using the word the same way and with the same intentions might well be killed two minutes later?

Because the people who deny black people are experiencing their very real racism are almost exclusively non-black.

I mean, for Christ's sake! If blacks were still powerless, Imus would still be on MSNBC.

Be sure to let the black voters whose votes were systematically flushed by the Florida Bush2000 campaign chair know their nightmare is over.

By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations. These were individuals who weren't remotely involved with drugs. It didn't matter to this bastard. Yet I do NOT remember an outcry commensurate with that I'm hearing over this Imus shit. I find that interesting that so many of us feel can feel triumphant for punishing a man who may have hurt some feelings -- but not nearly as many people pay attention when someone is actually ruining lives merely because those lives were housed within skin of a different color.

That story broke after the issued was justly settled, was it not? I think it was in Texas, was it not? The outrage post-Rodney King, Imus, etc, were issues where the guilty either preserved their privilege or where it looked like they were going to be preserved.

I asked a question in response to your post. I can't tell from the passage in question and your reply whether the answer is yes or no.

Please point to any statement by me that could possibly be construed as saying that racism doesn't exist....

I never said you denied racism existed....

I didn't say you denied anyone's freedom of expression....

Again, it's fortunate for me I didn't attribute anything to you you didn't say, because I can turn down your challenge without making my point untrue.

The rest of his latest post is just jibberish as he tries to backtrack and deny that he was putting words in my mouth. I hate it when Bill O'Reilly tries to do it to his guests, so I see no reason to acknowledge it when Mike does it.

My replies to your questions and challenges were true, and I replied to no assertion I put word in your mouth because you made none. All you gotta do is cite where I put any words in your mouth.

Peter:
My statement to you about rap were in response to yours assertion that:

"If Al Sharpton is that upset about Black women being spoken of in such a disrespectful manner, then why not spend his time going after the radio stations playing rap songs that call Black women "ho's" (when they're not talking about killing cops.) Or are slurs and racism only acceptable when they stem from Sharpton's own constituency?"

- I don't profess to know your experience with or knowledge of rap music but qualified with 'some' or 'all' or not, what you expressed in your post was 'ho's' and talk of killing cops, as though that is the be all end all of rap and hip hop music.

- Do I think you are stupid?
Only when I read Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man LOL, when I read X-Factor I think you are a genius! Plus, you make some pretty good observations here on your blog.

- If Al Sharpton or anyone else is going to go after racists individuals it should not just be limited to an attack against any specific race.

- No, Snoop Dogg wasn't saying that people should be able to read between the lines and know that not all women are being considered ho's and bitches in rap songs. I was citing his words, which you also pointed out, as putting forth the obvious distinction between rap and the situation with Imus, and this is a distinction that is clearly understood in the black community. It doesn't make it right to refer to a woman in a derogatory fashion and Imus was definitely just trying to be derogatory towards these women.

Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers:
- Mr. Myers, I made no pre-judgement about Mr. Mulligan in any regard.
- Mr. Mulligan, my intention wasn't to take your quote out of context or put any spin on your words, as I said I doubt you meant anything in a derogatory manner, that particular portion of your statement just read as a backhanded compliment in my opinion. The rest of your statement I was in agreeance with, as well as some of the the other ideas and opinions that you have expressed.
- And yeah, definitely dunno how that post wound up on the Kirsten Dunst thread

--Yuri

Personally, I have no problem with a white comedian or a white person using the word nigger in and of itself, its really a matter of the context. That is what is the differentiating factor. Its the sentiment behind the words that are important. My favorite comedian, George Carlin has a great joke that illustrates this point. Look up his '96 comedy special I believe.

-- Yuri

By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations.

There was a columnist from NYC who did a whole series of articles uncovering this guy's antics. I did find it interesting that neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton seemed to take an interest in those cases.

BTW, now that the charges against the Duke students have been dropped and it likes like Nifong will be, at minimum, disbarred, anyone putting up any odds that Al Sharpton will apologize to the Lacrosse players about the comments he made about them?

I have had a few reactions to the "jokes" from Imus. I'm a 53 year old black woman. I adopted and am raising a 15 year old black girl who is consistently on the honor roll and plays basketball for her high school. She was chosen to be apart of Sponsor a Scholar in her school and she is a nice young lady with a quick smile.

I say this because most aren't in my position. I get to see all the hours of practice with her team, then all the hours of homework. I get to see her lose weight when things become too hectic but she never stops and never whines she has a dream.

Their are girls who don't have my daughters inspiration, her nice personality her loving ways. I hate to see so many who imitate the Beyonce's, Ciera and many others who writhe against the wall or lay and gyrate on the floors and wear as little as possible to sell their music while the guys will say anything and show their bling bling to impress the youth of today.

Maybe the ladies should take a look at who got the most awards. The one who just sings and dances and that is the Mary J. Blige. It took me a while to really appreciate her. Another is Alicia Keys and where I used to love Janet Jackson well I'm sick of seeing her little breast pushing up out of her clothes.

Yes, sadly Imus had to go but I hope and pray that many others black and white are right behind him.

P. Dixon

At this point, we're just going to have to part ways on the issue and agree to disagree. I can't make my viewpoint any clearer and I'm not likely to change on this one. I honestly believe that the best course of action in this would be for people to do away with these words on general public discourse and be done with them. I'm never going to subscribe to the idea that any vulgar, hurtful or despicable word should also be considered as fine and dandy when it's "our word be used by us."

I'm also going to hold the position that Imus should have been heavily fined and punished. But so long as the people who wanted him gone aren't fighting just as hard to make people who's bread and better is to be even more degrading towards blacks and women unemployed as well, Imus should still have a job.

When stuff like this,

http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/2147415982/50_Cent/Get_In_My_Car

stops making guys like that millions of dollars, guys like that aren't embraced by many in the black community and if they themselves are made unemployed...

Then I'll feel that there's no, or at least less, hypocrisy in what's happened in the past week.

8@ Ahhhhhhhrrrgggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, the header got lost on the above post.
That should read:

Micha,

At this point, we're just going to have to...

Hey, I had a strange shift tonight. I'm a wee bit fried.

And that shoule be...

"our word being used by us."

That's it, I'm going to bed.

Posted by: Den

By the way, this Imus flap is getting far more press than a story I heard on NPR some years ago that involved a corrupt law enforcement official in the southern U.S. framing poor African American individuals for drug violations.

There was a columnist from NYC who did a whole series of articles uncovering this guy's antics. I did find it interesting that neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton seemed to take an interest in those cases.

Of course not. The black population in Texas isn't a large enough minority to make it worth posturing for.

BTW, now that the charges against the Duke students have been dropped and it likes like Nifong will be, at minimum, disbarred, anyone putting up any odds that Al Sharpton will apologize to the Lacrosse players about the comments he made about them?

Humor! Arh! Arh!

Posted by: Jerry Chandler

I'm also going to hold the position that Imus should have been heavily fined and punished. But so long as the people who wanted him gone aren't fighting just as hard to make people who's bread and better is to be even more degrading towards blacks and women unemployed as well, Imus should still have a job.

Fined? by who? For what specific offense?

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 12, 2007 10:05 PM

"Posted by: Micha at April 12, 2007 07:41 PM

One of the black posters on this thread felt that his repeated jokes at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success. His impression could be wrong, but his feelings are valid.

"Micha, you are in essence arguing that hurt feelings should count for more than the reality of a given situation. I realize that you are trying to distinguish between feelings that are valid versus those that are not, but who is to say which is which? Feelings aren't governed by logic or reason."

Here is the relevant post:

Posted by: Marcus at April 11, 2007 01:49 AM:

"I need to respond to some the comments being made here. As a Black man, I took some offense to Imus' comments about the Basketball team, but it wasn't the end of the world. However, when I found out about Imus referring to Gwen Ifil, a Black woman and a White House correspondent at the time, as a "cleaning lady," and accomplished writer William Rhoden of the New York Times as a "qouta hire," I began to feel like the firestorm was warranted. These comments are hurtful because it reinoforces the feeling that no matter how much you accomplish, how much success you obtain, in the eyes of far too many, you're still (please pardon the expression, I hate it myself) "just a 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."

I owe him and apology for misrepresenting his ideas, and on not being clear myself.

First off, Marcus is making a good case to suggest that Imus is in fact racist as a matter of fact. I don't have the tools to know if his assessment is correct or Bob Alfred's concerning Imus. So, if I was trying to determine this question I would take both their testimonies in consideration.

It is my fault if it somehow came out as if Marcus's emotions are an irrational tatement divorced from the issue of fact.

Secondly, Marcus's post also provides for me -- as a white person, and in this case a complete outsider -- an invaluable insight into the concerns, and also the feelings of blacks concerning the word 'nigger' and the way it is used by whites and blacks.

Since the question we are dealing here is in the realm of politics, sociology and mass psychology (as opposed to physics or mathematics or logic), we are dealing here with a question of human interaction, in which feelings, attitudes, shifting meanings of words and contexts are the constants we have to take into consideration. It would probably be more irrational not too.

What I'm trying to do here is assess rationaly the complex interaction of human attitudes, meanings and emotions involved in this case, and find a way of balancing them and in the most rational way possible. Without taking feelings into consideration I cannot do that.

I alo think it is a mistake to believe that the issue here is logic vs. feelings. The issue here is the feelings of whites vs. the feelings of blacks. It is often a mistake of each side in an argument to believe that they represent reason while the other side is emotional. Usually both sides bring an emotional point of view to the table, and those points of view are valid both on the emotional level and on the factual, or rather, each point of view tells you something about the facts of the case and also about the undeniable fact of the emotions involved.

Thirdly, one of the issues on this thread was the feeling of whites that spokesmen like Al Sharpton are using the race card cynically against whites, while they are not realy being sincere about their attitudes toward the word 'nigger.' So here the question of valid vs. invalid emotions is doubly relevant. Are black spokesmen insincere about their feelings concerning the word 'nigger'? And what do the feelings of whites in this regard tell us about white attitudes? If I were a political aide working for Al Sharpton, I would tell him that he needs to address these feelings among whites if he's interested to affect their attitudes instead of just scoring points among blacks by annoying whity.

Bill, if I want to be your friend, I must do what your other friends do, and be aware of your emotions, no matter how idiosyncratic or irrational they may be. It would be irrational of me to ignore your emotions if the question before me is my interaction with you. Similarly, in the question of the interaction between blacks and whites (or Arabs and Jews in my part of the world), we should be aware of the feelings of blacks and whites. Which is not to say we should become emotional. On the contrary, we mut treat them rationaly and in a balanced way. This is why, for example, while understanding black feelings about the word 'nigger' I would never agree to an attempt to make the use of the word illegal. In my attempt at rational assessment: the concern of freedom of speech (whih is not wholly rational either) while not invalidating black feelings, overrides them. Conversly, while I understand Bobb and Jerry's feelings concerning the use of the word 'nigger' by blacks, I think the emotional need of blacks to deal with that word in their own way outweighs Bob and Jerry's emotions on this subject.

But then, this is just my opinions and feelings, both rational and irrational, and we can certainly agree to disagree in a spirit of mutual respect. Since this is what human interaction is all about.

The fact that Al Sharpton or rappers behave badly does not justify Imus behaving badly in and of itself. Unless the idea we're suggesting is that we have no choice but to accept a certain level of bad behavior from everybody. What we don't want is a situation in which every time Al Sharpton says something, whites wil cry for his head, and blacks will say: "what about Imus." And every time blacks will want Imus's head, whites wil say: "what about Sharpton." The options are either to accept that guys like that exist on the airwaves, or that the white and black communities respectably will try to improve things in their own communities instead of passing the ball to the other. Or something in between the two options.

------

Ser, I really liked yor last two posts on this issue.

Posted by: Micha at April 13, 2007 06:09 AM

Bill, if I want to be your friend, I must do what your other friends do, and be aware of your emotions, no matter how idiosyncratic or irrational they may be.

Uh... no. It's really the other way around. I can continue to have friends as long as I'm willing to cast aside the past and give my friends the trust they have earned. What happened to me when I was younger is over and done and it would be irrational in the extreme to let the emotional after-images prevent me from enjoying the friendships I have today.

Posted by: Micha at April 13, 2007 06:09 AM

By the way, I don't feel as though I know you well enough to call you a friend, Micha, but I'm sure you're a stellar friend to have. :)

I realize that you're merely trying to recognize that there is are many "us vs. them" schisms in the world, but nevertheless the acceptance of the concept of the "outsider" troubles me. I remember about 15 years ago someone with whom I worked took to wearing a t-shirt that said, "You wouldn't understand, it's a black thing." And I remember thinking, "Gee, that'll help promote understanding."

I really do want to understand, to build bridges, to help make the world a better place. But I can't do that if others don't want to reciprocate. And I'm beginning to feel as though the desire to reciprocate is becoming an increasingly rare commodity amongst people of all races, creeds, and any other group along which we care to draw battle lines.

I hope my feeling is wrong. But I'm not seeing a lot to make me hopeful.

"The fact that Al Sharpton or rappers behave badly does not justify Imus behaving badly in and of itself. Unless the idea we're suggesting is that we have no choice but to accept a certain level of bad behavior from everybody."

I think the term for that is "tolerance." It's something that, along with forgiveness, is seen as a charming theory and a rare practice.

There's a song in "Avenue Q" called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." It's charming and accurate and always draws genuine, aware laughter because it acknowledges what everyone denies, cloaking truth in a "Sesame Street"-esque tune.

White and Black cultures have always had a sort of cultural exchange program. Blacks have given us blues and jazz and spiritual hymnals and various slang terms and, as Newsday columnist Katti Gray (who is Black) pointed out, rap songs such as "Bitch Betta Have my Money" by AMG, "Smack my Bitch Up" by the Ultramagnetic MCs, "Money, Slabs and Hos" by Throw Minded Click, "Those Hos Like it Raw" by DJ Slugo, and "Money, Hos & Clothes" by DJ Shortstop...none of whom, to my knowledge, have offered apologies for their characterization of Black women that has pervaded both Black and White Culture.

And what have Whites given Blacks, you may ask? Well, judging by the firing of Don Imus, spearheaded by Al "Had to pay $65,000 to the White Cop he slandered and never did apologize" Sharpton (not to be confused with Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson) I'd say some of them have mastered the lynch mob mentality.

Can't say I see that as an equitable swap.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 13, 2007 06:42 AM:

"Uh... no. It's really the other way around. I can continue to have friends as long as I'm willing to cast aside the past and give my friends the trust they have earned."

Hopefully it is reciprocal.

"By the way, I don't feel as though I know you well enough to call you a friend, Micha, but I'm sure you're a stellar friend to have. :)"

Thanks. I'm afraid I have my own issues (of PAD's comics). Apparently I use humor as a shield.

"I realize that you're merely trying to recognize that there is are many "us vs. them" schisms in the world, but nevertheless the acceptance of the concept of the "outsider" troubles me. I remember about 15 years ago someone with whom I worked took to wearing a t-shirt that said, "You wouldn't understand, it's a black thing." And I remember thinking, "Gee, that'll help promote understanding.""

I too have problem with the need by blacks sometimes to build a wall and seperate themselves from whites. This is very apparent in music. Whenever whites get into a style of music that emerged among blacks, this style is somehoe devalued in the eyes of many blacks. They seem to see jazz, blues, rock, soul, funk and hip-hop as theirs, ignoring the fact that these styles also involve things taken from white culture and contributions by white. When whites add their own point of view to these styles of music, out of love, some black see it as stealing, instead of the opportunity for a dialogue. That is regretable.

That said, we should also understand the need of blacks to establish and assert their own unique identity. I believe that feeling confident about who 'we' are, makes it easier to be open to others. The 60's civil right movement seems to have neglected the need among blacks to figure out their own identity as well as finding their place in the greater American one. As a result the vacuum was filled by less admirable forces. The State of Israel is certainly an embodiment of this internal conflict as far as Jews are concerned, between the need to differentiate our own unique identity and fitting in with and opening to the rest of the world. We also find it difficult to find the right balance quite often. Presumably my mother moved from New York to Jerusalem because she needed something that Jewish life in the US could not provide.

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 13, 2007 06:42 AM:

"I really do want to understand, to build bridges, to help make the world a better place. But I can't do that if others don't want to reciprocate. And I'm beginning to feel as though the desire to reciprocate is becoming an increasingly rare commodity amongst people of all races, creeds, and any other group along which we care to draw battle lines."

I share the same feeling. Like I said, I think it is a certain lack of confidence by people concerning their own identities, which causes them to build walls and attack other identities instead of building bridges. Which is why the processes should go together.

Posted by: Peter David at April 13, 2007 06:59 AM:

I think the term for that is "tolerance." It's something that, along with forgiveness, is seen as a charming theory and a rare practice.

I couldn't agree with you more. But I'll try anyway.

"There's a song in "Avenue Q" called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." It's charming and accurate and always draws genuine, aware laughter because it acknowledges what everyone denies, cloaking truth in a "Sesame Street"-esque tune."

Very true. Which is why people should be more tolerant of each other instead of scoring points by accusing others of racism or other stuff.

Maybe I'll see Avenue Q next time I visit the US.

"rap songs such as "Bitch Betta Have my Money" by AMG, "Smack my Bitch Up" by the Ultramagnetic MCs, "Money, Slabs and Hos" by Throw Minded Click, "Those Hos Like it Raw" by DJ Slugo, and "Money, Hos & Clothes" by DJ Shortstop...none of whom, to my knowledge, have offered apologies for their characterization of Black women that has pervaded both Black and White Culture."

Some of the best 60's music has misogynous themes. Which does not excuse the behavior of rappers. I suspect Hip-hop is a good example of a patriarchal culture. So was 60's rock to a lesser extent. It's a little troublling to listen to songs with lines like 'little girl'and such.

"And what have Whites given Blacks?"

Since all these styles of music emerged in the US and not in Africa, it seems that music benefited from the often tragic interaction between blacks and whites in the US. But let's not also forget the whites who crossed the tracks to listen to, admire, promote, produce, imitate and add their own take to black music. They also had a role in breaking racial barriers. I believe that rock music is the result of people crossing barriers.

"BTW, now that the charges against the Duke students have been dropped and it likes like Nifong will be, at minimum, disbarred, anyone putting up any odds that Al Sharpton will apologize to the Lacrosse players about the comments he made about them?"

Futurama did a joke that seems to fit here: (Paraphrasing as I don't have the episode in front of me and updating to this situation)

The odds-makers have placed "Sharpton apologizes" as a 1000 to 0 longshot. This means a wager of $0 on "Sharpton apologizes" will win $1000 if he does. Despite this, surprisingly few takers.

The thoughts I've expressed on this issue have been scattered at best. I'd like to add one last post that may provide some insight into my P.O.V.:

1. Blacks still have it tougher than whites in the U.S. There's no question in my mind about that.

2. On an emotional level, no white person can truly know what it is like to be black in the U.S.

3. I have no problem with the double-standard that says blacks can use the "N" word while whites cannot.

4. I do have a problem with any double-standard that attempts to excuse racist attitudes on the part of individuals simply because they belong to minority groups.

5. I believe the power that comes from claiming the Mantle of the Perpetual Victim comes at a terrible price: it propagates the idea that minorities are inferior to whites.

5. While there is much work yet to be done, we have made significant progress against racism in the last 40-plus years. In my experience, those who would deny that are disguising a personal agenda as a political one.

6. Whites and blacks in the U.S. must find away to put aside our mutual distrust and find a way to work together. I realize that it's easy for me to say as a white person who has never known the sting of racial oppression, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Oh, I forgot something: Imus blows. Big time.

The fact that Al Sharpton or rappers behave badly does not justify Imus behaving badly in and of itself. Unless the idea we're suggesting is that we have no choice but to accept a certain level of bad behavior from everybody.

I don't believe anyone here is that as a justification for Imus' bad behavior. But at the same time, if we want to live in a soceity of equals, that means everyone should held to same standard of conduct. If it's wrong for Imus to call young women "hos", then it should be equally wrong for rappers to do the same. This isn't to defend Imus, whom I'm never liked. In fact, I'm thrilled he's off MSNBC because that means I can watch that channel in the mornings before I go to work.

And that goes the same for the dreaded N-word. If Sharpton and others want that word banished from our public discourse (as I think it should be), then he should be having sitdowns with Chris Rock and various rappers and telling them that should drop it from their acts.

I do remember one black comedian whose name escapes me at this point, announced that he was dropping that word from his act after the Michael Richards incident. At the time, I was hoping others would follow suit.

And I do think Sharpton's past bad behavior is relevant, not as a justification for Imus's bad behavior, but because he has a long history of injecting himself into issues in order to get his face on TV and expand his influence in the black community. I think it was clear from the start that in this case, he was after getting Imus's head for his wall rather than simply getting Imus to apologize and change his behavior.

White and Black cultures have always had a sort of cultural exchange program. Blacks have given us blues and jazz and spiritual hymnals and various slang terms and, as Newsday columnist Katti Gray (who is Black) pointed out, rap songs such as "Bitch Betta Have my Money" by AMG, "Smack my Bitch Up" by the Ultramagnetic MCs, "Money, Slabs and Hos" by Throw Minded Click, "Those Hos Like it Raw" by DJ Slugo, and "Money, Hos & Clothes" by DJ Shortstop...none of whom, to my knowledge, have offered apologies for their characterization of Black women that has pervaded both Black and White Culture.

And what have Whites given Blacks, you may ask? Well, judging by the firing of Don Imus, spearheaded by Al "Had to pay $65,000 to the White Cop he slandered and never did apologize" Sharpton (not to be confused with Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson) I'd say some of them have mastered the lynch mob mentality.

Al Sharpton is a black man who has made a career of displaying anger without getting Rodney-Kinged or Sean-Belled. And the songs you cite are examples of fortunes built on the marketing of indulgence and privilege. (Consider the Austin Powers movie with the twins named "Fook Mi" and "Fook Yu." As the Austin Powers persona is founded on indulgence, the race-protest died quickly.)

If Imus's public persona was one of indulgence and privilege, and didn't involve chummy access to our federal representatives, I couldn't disagree with your account of arbitrary application of principle.

While there is much work yet to be done, we have made significant progress against racism in the last 40-plus years. In my experience, those who would deny that are disguising a personal agenda as a political one.

So, what progress-to-be-made are you referring to? Feel free to say if that question is too invasive.

Micha, I'm not white. I'm Cherokee/Filipino. At best, in my area, I'm thought to be Hispanic. I'll never be mistaken for a white man. And I've experienced no small amount of racism in my life.

The thing is, I didn't respond by attacking those few people ignnorant enough of my actual status to try and insult me correctly. I don't seek to have people fired from their jobs, or ostracized, or try to exert my power, limited as it is, to try and hurt someone back. If I suspect there's a chance to sit down and chat with people, I'll take it. And I'm very careful not to engage in racist discriminatory behaviour on my own.

I hope that explains some of where I'm coming from. (and by the way, thanks for explaining why some people write G-d...I didn't realize where that came from). What Sharpton and Jackson have done could potentially set race relations back 100 years. Why? Because it not only shows that the black community has power, but as PAD suggests, it shows they aren't afraid to be heavy handed in using it. CBS fired Imus after meeting with Sharpton and Jackson (according to the news bit I heard...I'm not really sure about that). If that's true, what message does that send out? That whites better be careful what hood language they try to mimic, or the black mob is going to go after them where they work? How is this an improvement? My wife had some hip hop song playing in the background last night, and one verse came up where every line started with "nigga." Tell me, how are my children, who seem to have so far only inherited my eyes, and thus look very, very white, going to distinguish when using that word is appropriate and when it's not? Do I know? Sure I do, because I didn't hear it spoken outside of Roots until I was 16, and it caused a fight in the locker room I was in. It brought a good friend to tears, and caused me to think "oh, yeah, he's black...and that's what black slaves were called." So the first time I heard it used contemporarily was in a very negative and emotional context.

The first time my son hears it, it's in a song by a popular hip hop artist. Will my son, someday, lose his job because he speaks a word the black community makes common jargon, because he lacks the context to understand the full impact of the word?

I fully understand that in today's world, the black community wants to take words away from other cultures. I don't understand how you cannot see that as anything but racially discriminatory. It's exactly the same thing the white slavers did...take things away from their slaves. As PAD says, the white community has always, ALWAYS adopted elements of black culture. It's absurd of the black community to think that's going to stop just because they ask us to, and manage to get a few idiots fired. So long as black entertainers continue to use these words, other people are going to embrace them. I'm not saying that's right, that's just the way it is.

As to the whole Imus mess...I'd really like to see his audience retaliate against the sponsors and stations here. I don't want corporations deciding what is available for consumption. I want consumers to decide that, and this is a perfect opportunity for consumers to show Staples, Pepsi, CBS, and others that Sharpton and Jackson aren't the only ones to have some power.

But the threats against the Rutgers players has to stop. Talk about an ultimate expression of stupidity. Attacking the one group that really is only a victim in this whole mess.

I just read Les Moonves's statement, about how CBS fired Imus because we have to raise awareness and all that. I don't buy it for an instant. "Why?" you may ask. Because Imus's show was known for being provocative, and if there hadn't been such an outlash, his show would go on. If you wanna be seen as progressive, do it BEFORE everyone's calling for your head. This way, it'll be seen as something other than damage control.

The first time my son hears it, it's in a song by a popular hip hop artist. Will my son, someday, lose his job because he speaks a word the black community makes common jargon, because he lacks the context to understand the full impact of the word?

If someone loses his job because he wouldn't understand why Jackie Chan in Rush Hour getting thrown out the window in that one scene is funny, the concerns of his parents are the least of mine.

As to the whole Imus mess...I'd really like to see his audience retaliate against the sponsors and stations here. I don't want corporations deciding what is available for consumption.

Corporations have been dictating media access since before the highly-rated Gilligan's Island was cancelled by an executive whose wife didn't like it. Since when haven't corporations acted as a gateway to mass media?

Mr. Mulligan, my intention wasn't to take your quote out of context or put any spin on your words, as I said I doubt you meant anything in a derogatory manner, that particular portion of your statement just read as a backhanded compliment in my opinion. The rest of your statement I was in agreeance with, as well as some of the the other ideas and opinions that you have expressed.

That's col. I do know where you are coming from--some people are just amazed when a guy like Obama comes along, as though every Black male is supposed to be grabbing his crotch and having every third word be a vulgarity. But we have to get beyond the point where even a compliment is seen as a potential insult--it does minorities no good if other people feel the safest bet is to just not say anything to them at all. Anyway, we cool. Sorry if I assumed you were going on the attack.

(As an aside...I suppose if one were looking for a silver lining in this it's that a minority kid--actually any kid but especially a minority kid--who displays the least bit of poise, class and etiquette looks way better than they may deserve these days. The teen culture has gotten so raw and vulger that anyone who breaks the mold looks like a diamond in a pile of shit. They can go far. I tell my students that, well, I leave out the shit part, and you can see how some get it. Any parent who wants their kid to succeed--teach them common manners. They aint so common any more and people will love them for it.)

- I don't profess to know your experience with or knowledge of rap music but qualified with 'some' or 'all' or not, what you expressed in your post was 'ho's' and talk of killing cops, as though that is the be all end all of rap and hip hop music.

There are some great rap and hip hop songs out there but if you look at the top 5 this week--as someone (I think it was michelle Malkin) did and actually read the lyrics...it's a cesspool. Imus would have been tarred and feathered if he's used some of those lines on the ladies.

I have had a few reactions to the "jokes" from Imus. I'm a 53 year old black woman. I adopted and am raising a 15 year old black girl who is consistently on the honor roll and plays basketball for her high school. She was chosen to be apart of Sponsor a Scholar in her school and she is a nice young lady with a quick smile.

Ms. Dixon, you are to be congratulated. BTW, is there anything like Upward Bound at you school? (check out http://www.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html) I'm the coordinator at my school. It's a program to prepare kids for college and it's great--they do free tutoring, pay for college applications and the SATs, and do free saturday and summer sessions where the kids earn college credit. It's a vitual guarantee of getting into a good college. Your daughter sounds like she would be a great candidate (and a perfect example of what I was talking about above--would anyone bet against this child suceeding?)

That said, we should also understand the need of blacks to establish and assert their own unique identity

But as we become less and less racially stratified--interracial marriages are now 7% of the total and growing--such identities will become harder to maintain. (Actually I think the true percentage of interracial marriage is higher--I've seen where it's considered interracial if a biracial person marries a White but not if they marry a Black. Huh? Howzat?)

Mike Weber: "Fined? by who? For what specific offense?"

By his bosses. Monetarily or by a few weeks on the street without pay would have been fine. Imus does have a history of making racist comments, promising to never do it again and then doing it again. You hit a point as an employer where you don't take the word of someone anymore and you start hitting their livelihood.

Micha: (Yeah, I know I said agree to disagree, but I'm thick headed.) "In my attempt at rational assessment: the concern of freedom of speech (whih is not wholly rational either) while not invalidating black feelings, overrides them. Conversly, while I understand Bobb and Jerry's feelings concerning the use of the word 'nigger' by blacks, I think the emotional need of blacks to deal with that word in their own way outweighs Bob and Jerry's emotions on this subject."

Thing is, there are a lot of blacks in America who feel the same as I do. I turned the TV to MSNBC when I sat down just now and they had a black guest who said just that. They followed that with a roundtable of black guests that are all said the same thing. The interesting thing is that the guests are in there 40's and 50's while the callers offering excuses for using certain words are all younger.

There are even weird moments on film with people who used the n-word every third word. Richard Pryor was filmed in concert talking about a (then) recent event in his life where he went to Africa for a while. He was talking about the fact that he had suddenly realized that he hadn't used that word in days. He realized that the reason why was because he wasn't looking at any. He was looking at proud people. He talked about how hard this realization hit him and how he realized that the word was a description of the most wretched of the wretched amongst blacks and most blacks weren't that word. He vowed, to huge applause by the crowd, to never use it again.

Lasted about a year. But it was interesting that he had this revelation at a time when he was trying to clean up from his various abuses and that he forgot about it as he slipped back into some of his own personal demons' grips.

Micha: "The fact that Al Sharpton or rappers behave badly does not justify Imus behaving badly in and of itself. Unless the idea we're suggesting is that we have no choice but to accept a certain level of bad behavior from everybody. What we don't want is a situation in which every time Al Sharpton says something, whites will cry for his head, and blacks will say: "what about Imus." And every time blacks will want Imus's head, whites will say: "what about Sharpton.""

Yeah, we don't won't a situation where nothing gets done at all, but it's also somewhat annoying when Sharpton steps forward and gets treated as some righteous cultural warrior by the media rather then the bloated, hypocritical, often hate mongering windbag that he is. David Duke has tried to play the Sharpton role for whites on some issues and been, quite rightly, flipped the bird by the mainstream media even when he said something of borderline merit. Duke's history disqualifies him from being a member of the meaningful discourse on race. You can't cry about the race card if you like to use it so much yourself. Sharpton and some others should be treated the same.

Bill Myers: "3. I have no problem with the double-standard that says blacks can use the "N" word while whites cannot."

With you on every one of your points but that one. I'm going to keep believing that one of the best things any group of people can do for itself is to not embrace, celebrate or glorify the concepts of their own group self identifying themselves as the lowest of the low.

And speaking of the lowest of the low....

They're talking now about the fact that Imus fans are sending nasty hate mail to Rutgers and the girls on the team. Yeah, the people that didn't start the firestorm and have acted with more dignity then Imus, Sharpton or other players in this really deserve the grief. The girls that were Imus's target really need to be attacked by a group of mouth breathers with nothing better to do. Geez.

Bill Mulligan: "But as we become less and less racially stratified--interracial marriages are now 7% of the total and growing--such identities will become harder to maintain. (Actually I think the true percentage of interracial marriage is higher--I've seen where it's considered interracial if a biracial person marries a White but not if they marry a Black."

I'll push that the number of couples is even higher. Lots of people these days aren't getting married. I know quite a few unmarried couples who are interracial and have been together for longer then Jenn and I have been married. They don't show up in census either.

*****************************************************************************************************

Ok, the broken clock (Sharpton) was just on the TV saying the right things in front of CBS about using this as a springboard to deal with the black community's own use of these terms and rap's glorification of these terms. Now, if he actually does anything about it...

"Ok, the broken clock (Sharpton) was just on the TV saying the right things in front of CBS about using this as a springboard to deal with the black community's own use of these terms and rap's glorification of these terms. Now, if he actually does anything about it..."

I hope this isn't an example of words being powerless....

There are even weird moments on film with people who used the n-word every third word. Richard Pryor was filmed in concert talking about a (then) recent event in his life where he went to Africa for a while. He was talking about the fact that he had suddenly realized that he hadn't used that word in days. He realized that the reason why was because he wasn't looking at any. He was looking at proud people. He talked about how hard this realization hit him and how he realized that the word was a description of the most wretched of the wretched amongst blacks and most blacks weren't that word. He vowed, to huge applause by the crowd, to never use it again.

Lasted about a year. But it was interesting that he had this revelation at a time when he was trying to clean up from his various abuses and that he forgot about it as he slipped back into some of his own personal demons' grips.

*****************

SER: As far as I know, Richard Pryor never used the word "nigger" in his act again after LIVE AT THE SUNSET STRIP -- if he did, it was as the "epithet" but not as a word synonomous for blacks.

************
And that goes the same for the dreaded N-word. If Sharpton and others want that word banished from our public discourse (as I think it should be), then he should be having sitdowns with Chris Rock and various rappers and telling them that should drop it from their acts.
****************

SER: I actually disagree with removing the word "nigger" from the public discourse. I actually thought it was a positive that the word lost its "weight" as a weapon and that as a result of hip-hop culture, if a white kid and a black kid could call each other "my nigga." Talk about destroying the hate in a word.

If Michael Richards had said, "Hey, my niggas, what's up! Enjoying the show?" I would be the first to say that any tarring of him was unfair in that his intent was not racist (sure, it might not be advisable since he didn't know the guys personally but it wouldn't have been the same as what actually happened, in which he got pissed off and called these guys "niggers."

***********
White and Black cultures have always had a sort of cultural exchange program. Blacks have given us blues and jazz and spiritual hymnals and various slang terms and, as Newsday columnist Katti Gray (who is Black) pointed out, rap songs such as "Bitch Betta Have my Money" by AMG, "Smack my Bitch Up" by the Ultramagnetic MCs, "Money, Slabs and Hos" by Throw Minded Click, "Those Hos Like it Raw" by DJ Slugo, and "Money, Hos & Clothes" by DJ Shortstop...none of whom, to my knowledge, have offered apologies for their characterization of Black women that has pervaded both Black and White Culture.
***********

Peter, I'm not the biggest authority on hip-hop (more a casual fan) but even I know that "ho" was never synonomous for "black woman." As Snoop Dog said, it's basically the urban version of "slut." (And it's one of my favorite lines from BUFFY -- when Buffy refers to Dru as a "ho").

So, let's play this again: Don Imus does a comedy routine about Nicole Richie sleeping around and refers to her as "slut." Provocative, rude but far more defensible than his -- out of the blue -- referring to women as "sluts" for no reason other than, well, what was the reason? Was there sexuality of issue at all?

And therein lies the problem.

Just another 2 cents:

I find it interesting that so many people focus on the racial aspect of the comments while ignoring the sexist portion. Namely, Imus calling the accomplished women "hos," which I find very offensive.

Is it just me or is mainstream America more accepting of sexism vs racism? Shouldn't they be treated with equal contempt?

I'm really surprised that more women's organizations haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

Christine

"1. Blacks still have it tougher than whites in the U.S. There's no question in my mind about that.

2. On an emotional level, no white person can truly know what it is like to be black in the U.S."

Sure, because if a white person says anything about blacks or other races, they only get fired, or beaten-up, or arrested for a "hate crime", but if blacks say anything about whites, they get a high five, a pat on the back, and/or a 6-figure+ record deal/concert tour.

And god forbid being white looking for a job against other candidates if the company hiring doesn't have enough of the other minority candidates.

Yeah, Whites don't know the sting of racism...

Good point, Christine. Any slur against a group is reprehensible. People should be judged by their individual actions, not by their outward characteristics.

There is much less of a disagreement between myself, Jerry and Bobb than it seems.

2) I think none of us is enthusiastic about the idea of Imus -- even if he is a jerk -- being crushed by some black political apparatus for being a jerk. If somebody said something offensive I believe he should be criticized severely. But afterwards I would hope the audiences would make their own decision. I wouldn't want it to seem as if some power group forced the network to fire him. It is not good for blacks as well as for society in general. Words should be countered with words.

2) I certainly disapprove of racism or mysogyny coming out of black society. I disapprove of the word ho and bitch. And I don't buy that it's referingonly to some kind of women. From a glance at the link to Fifty Cent's song provided above it seems that Mr. Cent refers to any women who is potentially likely to be in his company as bitch. I believe these male rappers are as insensitive toward the women around them as some whites are or were toward blacks. And blacks spoke up, and so should women.

3) I assume none of us is complaining that we're not alloowed to use the word 'nigger'. It's not like we're dying to use it but can't. I personaly also feel that by using the word on themselves blacks are, in a way, keeping themselves down. The difference here is that I believe that ultimatly this is a private black issue that I don't understand comletely, and which they have to deal with themselves. I recognize their right and their need to deal with that demon themselves, and I don't think it has any relation to why whites shouldn't use the term. I don't see it as discriminatory that blacks ask whites not to use the word. Since I don't want to, it is not much of an imposition. I understand why they are offended when whites use it, but less than blacks. I might object if blacks react too aggressively hen a white person uses it.

4) I am aware and I disapprove of certain cultural influences of the hip-hop culture. But we have here another slippery slope: the comics/TV/Rock & Roll/video games/MTV/Hip Hop is ruining the youth slippery slope. Bob, I assume that you will teach your son when it is and isn't appropriate to use the word 'nigger' just as you would teach him other habits related to appropriateness, despite all the influences of public media (don't smoke pot despite Kirsten Dunst, and if you do don't say it to the media). And maybe when your kid is a teen both black and white kids will use the word in order to annoy their parents. Who knows?

------------------

"That said, we should also understand the need of blacks to establish and assert their own unique identity

But as we become less and less racially stratified--interracial marriages are now 7% of the total and growing--such identities will become harder to maintain. (Actually I think the true percentage of interracial marriage is higher--I've seen where it's considered interracial if a biracial person marries a White but not if they marry a Black. Huh? Howzat?)"

It seems to me as an outsider that both themes exist in American society in a kind of imperfect balance. On the one hand, the desire to assimilate and merge together into an American identity. On the other, the desire of deferent subgroups -- black, Irish, Jews, Muslims, Indians, Mexican, Indians from India, Germans, southerners, etc. -- to keep their own uniqueness. It seems to me that both themes exist in interracial/interfaith/inter-ethnic/ inter-national marriages, and that they somehow try to pass to their children the uniqueness of both identities while living in harmony. How exactly it works? I have no direct knowledge. I know that my American relations who are intermarried connect with their Jewish identity by celebrating Jewish holidays and Bar Mitzvas and by remaining in contact with their Israeli relations. My 94 year old grandmother keeps sending them Jewish artifacts. I know the Irish and the Scots make money off Americans of Irish and Scottish decent who come seeking their roots. So things seem to be working out somehow. I think it is wrong for each one of these themes to be overstressed, either pressuring to assimilate or being too isolated. Althogh some take these approaches too.

Posted by: Bladestar at April 13, 2007 12:18 PM

Sure, because if a white person says anything about blacks or other races, they only get fired, or beaten-up, or arrested for a "hate crime",

Sure, if they're high-profile targets like Imus, or someone stupid enough to shout racial slurs in the middle of a predominantly black neighborhood. Other forms of discrimination continue to afflict minorities because they sail under the radar. For example, the practice of "redlining," or denying people in poor (and usually predominantly black) neighborhoods mortgages for which they qualify based on their financial abilities is illegal but people I know in the financial industry tell me it still goes on.

Posted by: Bladestar at April 13, 2007 12:18 PM

but if blacks say anything about whites, they get a high five, a pat on the back, and/or a 6-figure+ record deal/concert tour.

Uhm... no. Cute... but no. Not every pottie-talking rapper gets rich. And not every black person gets away with trash-talking other groups. When Jesse Jackson ran for president, his "Hymietown" remark came back to haunt him in a big way.

Posted by: Bladestar at April 13, 2007 12:18 PM

And god forbid being white looking for a job against other candidates if the company hiring doesn't have enough of the other minority candidates.

Only once in my life -- ONCE -- did I have reason to believe I had been denied a job due to a combination of my race and my gender. And you know what? It wasn't enough to "keep me down." Why not? Because I worked my ass off and found other opportunities to get ahead rather than making excuses.

Posted by: Bladestar at April 13, 2007 12:18 PM

Yeah, Whites don't know the sting of racism...

Look, as a white, non-Jewish, heterosexual male, I have NOT known discrimination on a par with that faced by blacks, Jews, gays, women, and a whole host of other groups I could name. That's just a fact. I've never had to face water cannons just so I could sit at the lunch counter at the local diner. I've never been framed for a crime by corrupt law enforcement officials who targeted me because of my skin color. I've never been harassed by cops (sorry, Jerry, I know it's not ALL cops but it does happen) because of the color of my skin.

So, unlike you, I'm not gonna whine about the discrimination I have faced. If blacks in the 1960s could face water cannons for the mere privilege of being able to sit at the lunch counter in the local diner, I can find a way around missing out on one job opportunity because of my race and gender.

Is it just me or is mainstream America more accepting of sexism vs racism? Shouldn't they be treated with equal contempt?

Absolutely it is, in both directions, whether it be the "dumb blond" or the "oafish male", the husband who can't fix toast for his kids when the mom is sick (forcing her to down Niquil like a Detroit rapper so she can save her kids from Dad's inneffectualness) to the ditzey valley girl and on and on...

But I don't know that Imus' slur was really a sexist one--woul dhe have ever called a predominantly White team "ho's"? We can't know for sure but the suspicion is that both "nappy-headed" and "ho's" were specifically targeted at the color of their skin, not their gender.

Posted by: Micha at April 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Words should be countered with words.

I said the exact same thing in a post earlier in this thread. So it seems you and I are also far more in agreement than we initially thought. ;)

If blacks in the 1960s could face water cannons for the mere privilege of being able to sit at the lunch counter in the local diner, I can find a way around missing out on one job opportunity because of my race and gender.

I have to gently disagree with you there. It doesn't help those who were hurt 40 years ago for you to be hurt now. It's like your mom telling you to eat your asparagus because there are kids starving in Asia. What, when I swallow does some kid in Sri Lanka suddenly go "Mmmmmm...oinion flakes!"?

Micha, I agree...I never viewed it as a disagreement, more a conversation.

And you're saying my plan to raise my kids on nothing more than my movie, comic, and game collection isn't sound? Rats. What if I throw in the Legos?

I do agree with two points made above...that, one the one hand, taking a negative word and turning it into a positive is a sign of empowerment. Like taking a derogatory nickname and making it your own, removing the negative sting.

At the same time, I do see the continued use of certain words within the black community as a way of keeping themselves repressed. It's a hard choice...work to retain their cultural identity, while trying to live among and along side the predominant culture. You see clashes in such things as an urbankid going to his first job interview. The two culture's idea of what proper attire is might differ. yet if the kid goes in anything less than dress shoes, slacks, shirt and tie, he's not going to get the job, regardless of his training or skills.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 13, 2007 12:56 PM

I have to gently disagree with you there. It doesn't help those who were hurt 40 years ago for you to be hurt now. It's like your mom telling you to eat your asparagus because there are kids starving in Asia. What, when I swallow does some kid in Sri Lanka suddenly go "Mmmmmm...oinion flakes!"?

Actually, you and I are in perfect agreement on that issue. The question is the severity of the hurt. If I sprain my ankle, denying that I'm in pain won't help someone who loses both his legs in some awful industrial accident somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm not going to equate my pain with his. It's just not the same.

And lay off the onion flakes. You know damn well they give you gas.

We have become more and more sensitive to language - and not necessarily in a good way.

Consider:

In the 60s, Dick Gregory wrote a book (an autobiography, i think) entitles, simply Nigger. he dedicated it to his late mother with the phrase "...now, wherever you are, if you hear someone use that word, they're advertising my book."

In the opening of the film The President's Analyst, Godfrey Cambridge has a monolog about growing up the youngest child in a (relatively) well-off black neighbourhood, who never heard the word till he went to a new school in like second grade. It's too long to recap, but the but the payoff is when he encounters his older brother and "...he told me what a nigger was. And then he did something worse. He told me I was it."

I'm not advocating stand-up comics spouting wop, mick, kike, polack or nigger jokes; but when we hide from words, we give those words power that they don't actually have - because words, by themselves, don't have any power.

It's when you form them up in ranks and send them out to do battle that they become powerful and potentially dangerous. And the ones you hide from are the ones that can be used most powerfully.

There's a reason for the term "F-bomb".

We have become more and more sensitive to language - and not necessarily in a good way.

Consider:

In the 60s, Dick Gregory wrote a book (an autobiography, i think) entitles, simply Nigger. he dedicated it to his late mother with the phrase "...now, wherever you are, if you hear someone use that word, they're advertising my book."

In the opening of the film The President's Analyst, Godfrey Cambridge has a monolog about growing up the youngest child in a (relatively) well-off black neighbourhood, who never heard the word till he went to a new school in like second grade. It's too long to recap, but the but the payoff is when he encounters his older brother and "...he told me what a nigger was. And then he did something worse. He told me I was it."

I'm not advocating stand-up comics spouting wop, mick, kike, polack or nigger jokes; but when we hide from words, we give those words power that they don't actually have - because words, by themselves, don't have any power.

It's when you form them up in ranks and send them out to do battle that they become powerful and potentially dangerous. And the ones you hide from are the ones that can be used most powerfully.

There's a reason for the term "F-bomb".

I find it interesting that so many people focus on the racial aspect of the comments while ignoring the sexist portion. Namely, Imus calling the accomplished women "hos," which I find very offensive.

A lot of that probably stems from the fact that the leading force in getting Imus canned was Al Sharpton. Had Gloria Allred jumped onto the media train over this story, it might have been more balanced.

Is it just me or is mainstream America more accepting of sexism vs racism?

I think in the realm of comedy, yes. Humor about sexual stereotypes (male or female) is more acceptable than racial ones.

One thing that annoys me are people who treat the Hillary vs. Obama presidential race as a litmus test as to whether the country is more ready for a woman president or a black president. That ignores all the myriad issues about whether or not someone might be willing to vote for this particular woman or this particular black man.

Bill Mulligan wrote: But I don't know that Imus' slur was really a sexist one--woul dhe have ever called a predominantly White team "ho's"? We can't know for sure but the suspicion is that both "nappy-headed" and "ho's" were specifically targeted at the color of their skin, not their gender.

I can't say specifically whether Imus would have directed "ho" to a white woman, but I have heard it used that way before.

Christine

"Only once in my life -- ONCE -- did I have reason to believe I had been denied a job due to a combination of my race and my gender. And you know what? It wasn't enough to "keep me down." Why not?"

Because you get knocked down, but you got back up again?

PAD

Misha: ..."at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success."

Sorry, you hit my sticky point.

While the majority of black women DO deserve their success (I am not disputing this), anyone who works in a government field knows this is not always the case. Working for a state department, the candidates for promotion came down to my husband and a black woman (a friend and former coworker). The job requirements included a working knowledge of a computer program: my husband knew the program well, the woman did not know how to boot the computer. Who was hired? The black woman.
Point 2: When, several years later, my husband went for a promotion for which he was uniquely qualified with 10 years' specialized experience, he was told point blank (a fatal mistake) that he could not be hired because he was not on the affirmative action list. This resulted in a three year law suit on reverse discrimination, during which we learned that the State has specific quotas of various minorities that they must hire - qualified or not - to meet their goals. You do not have to be competent, you just have to fit the quota.
How can ANYONE (of ANY 'subgroup') have pride or be considered 'successful' when they are being hired or accepted merely to fill a number? We as a nation are supremely wonderful at talking one game while playing another. WHen will we drop the quotas, drop the racial category on forms (I refuse to answer them), and just treat everyone the same? If something is an insult for one group to say it, then it should be an insult for ALL groups to say it, or do it, but we can't have it both ways all the time.
Make up your minds, people.
(Yes, we won our lawsuit. Our lawyer? A very competent black lady)

WHen will we drop the quotas, drop the racial category on forms (I refuse to answer them), and just treat everyone the same?

When we actually DO treat everyone the same and do as we say, instead of lie and perpetrate the same ol' crap with a wink and a nudge.

That's how affirmative action came to be in the first place---when local governments and labor unions lied and refused to hire blacks for years. If we were to drop affirmative action, I doubt very much we'd see any Golden Age of color blind hiring....

"Because you get knocked down, but you got back up again?

PAD"

Bill took a whiskey drink, he took a lager drink, he took a vodka drink, he took a cider drink, and sang the songs that made him think about the good times, the songs that made him think about the best times?

But I don't know that Imus' slur was really a sexist one--woul dhe have ever called a predominantly White team "ho's"? We can't know for sure but the suspicion is that both "nappy-headed" and "ho's" were specifically targeted at the color of their skin, not their gender.

Can't it be both racist and sexist? He might or might not have used the term for a predominately white team, but the odds that he'd have used it to describe a male team are virtually nil.

And then he was pissing the night away. As usual.

Posted by: campchaos at April 13, 2007 05:59 PM:

Misha: ..."at the expence of professional black women indicates an attitude that these women somehow do not deserve their success."

I spell my name Micha, because that's how my American mother spelled it when I was born. However, my name is basically the Hebrew original of the english name usually spelled Micah.

"While the majority of black women DO deserve their success (I am not disputing this)."

"Our lawyer? A very competent black lady."

So I think we can all agree that these women should not be called 'hos' or 'niggers.' I would submit that the women who unfairly got your husband's job shouldn't be called that either. But apparently the term underqualified does seem to apply.

"How can ANYONE (of ANY 'subgroup') have pride or be considered 'successful' when they are being hired or accepted merely to fill a number?"

I am not sure I have sufficient knowledge of the way things work in the US to discuss affirmative action. However, I don't think it is relevant to the previous discussion about the use of the word 'nigger', which I think we've pretty much covered.

"WHen will we drop the quotas, drop the racial category on forms (I refuse to answer them), and just treat everyone the same?"

As I understand it, there are two problems that are the reason for affirmitive action:
1) People are not treated the same. A person's race or gender can still make it more difficult for them to gain the opportunities other enjoy.

2)People are not the same. As a result of history and present conditions some people, often black, are born with much fewer opportunities, and therefore have fewer opportunities later on when they search jobs.

In short, the playing field is not as level as it's supposed to be.

Perhaps affirmative action is not the right solution to these problems? Maybe there's a better one? Or maybe it's the right solution but the way its applied is wrong. I do not know. I do know that glass ceilings are real, and sometimes something has to be done to break them, since they do not break on their own.

"something is an insult for one group to say it, then it should be an insult for ALL groups to say it, or do it, but we can't have it both ways all the time."

I think we've covered that. Whatever your opinion on the use of the word 'nigger', I think we can all agree that words can have different levels of severity when spoken by different people in different circumstances.

Like I said before, I don't think the problem here is with words. I assume nobody here is dying to say the word 'nigger' but can't. And although we might regret that young blacks use it among themselves, I doubt that the vocabulary of black kids is high on your list of concerns. Apparently, there are certain real concerns regarding the relations between blacks and others -- such as affirmative action -- that need to be addressed. But that's just my opinion as an outsider.

----------------

Posted by: Christine at April 13, 2007 12:05 PM:

"Just another 2 cents:

I find it interesting that so many people focus on the racial aspect of the comments while ignoring the sexist portion. Namely, Imus calling the accomplished women "hos," which I find very offensive.

Is it just me or is mainstream America more accepting of sexism vs racism? Shouldn't they be treated with equal contempt?"

Unfortunatly, for people to start paying attention to a group feeling offended by something, that group -- in this case women, or specifically black women -- needs to draw attention to itself, and present its own point of view. Sadly, the kind od spokespeople that are very good at doing that often get carried away, like soldiers that don't know when to stop fighting.

In any case, it seems that at present women, even more than blacks, have a difficulty conveying their point of view and their concerns in an effective way.

Going to an audition this morning, saw a yellow(ugh) Audi with a framed license plate. What's engraved on the frame? "Beware the B*%$# driving the Circles." Don'tcha know, thanks to this thread, I couldn't help wondering if anyone ELSE called this woman that if she'd be offended. I also wondered if she'd be offended if I told her I think yellow cars look like Big Bird on roller skates.

You all should know, I'm going to have that song in my head all weekend while I'm at work, and it's going to be VERY lonely.

Yeah, we don't won't a situation where nothing gets done at all, but it's also somewhat annoying when Sharpton steps forward and gets treated as some righteous cultural warrior by the media rather then the bloated, hypocritical, often hate mongering windbag that he is. David Duke has tried to play the Sharpton role for whites on some issues and been, quite rightly, flipped the bird by the mainstream media even when he said something of borderline merit. Duke's history disqualifies him from being a member of the meaningful discourse on race. You can't cry about the race card if you like to use it so much yourself. Sharpton and some others should be treated the same.

I'm going to cite "Crash" again, because it presents a good example how the display of anger, or even the issue of keeping their hands visible, is not the same issue for blacks as it is for whites. The simple virtue of Al Sharpton's public persona is that he is a black man who displays anger without getting Rodney-Kinged or Sean-Belled.

David Duke is just one angry white guy lost in the crowd of fox news and talk radio. He loses out because it's hard for whites to disregard the systematic flushing of black votes in Florida or Shoshana Johnson's contribution to our country when the racist white guy makes it hard to deny there's such a thing as racism.

Posted by: Luke K.Walsh at April 13, 2007 06:28 PM

Bill took a whiskey drink, he took a lager drink, he took a vodka drink, he took a cider drink...

The last time I did anything like that, I turned scotch plaid, threw up like crazy, and nearly lost molecular cohesion. It was then that I learned the inescapable truth: I just can't drink like I used to.

Now he uses a straw with his pinky raised, rather than just gulping it down.

Having written the my original post (below) on 4/10/07, I realized that my scenario was going to turn out to be completely wrong when Imus kept apologizing, apologizing, apologizing...

The minute he started down "Apology Way", he gave his advertisers the perfect out to run swiftly away.

Two disparate radio personalities-- Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh--both said that Imus was apologizing like a guy desperately attempting to save his FIRST radio job.

I still have no doubt that Imus will be back (if he doesn't just decide to sit back and enjoy the rest of his life)... He just won't be back in two weeks.

And when and if he does decide to return (and it will be HIS decision)-- the latter half of my original prediction will play out the same way I envisioned it.

Did anyone else read the AP story that said Imus-- in addition to his Western properties-- had a 30 million dollar beach house and a Penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park that had a 1,400 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY?

Plus, he had recently resigned with CBS for another 5 years at $10 Million a year. When his lawayers and agents get finished negotiating Imus' final settlement (estimated to be at least $30 million)-- he will be able to go buy his own radio station, syndicate himself and then mock fire himself as the need arises.

"Posted by: insideman at April 10, 2007 04:36 PM

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)."

I came in late to this discussion, but it seems to me that the people who want to keep the national dialogue about this issue going, should be sorry that Imus was fired. Now the issue will disappear from public discourse in a few days. Where as if Imus came back after a two week suspension, he would keep it going for months. No one, and I mean no one, can sell a cause like Imus. If you need a Veterans Hospital built, tell Imus, and he will rally thousands to donate time and money to do it.If Autism is being caused by something, and you want the world to know, tell Imus. If there is a cause that he cares about, he'll talk about it on the air, with real, respectable guests, who's opinions actually carry serious weight, not charlatons like Sharpton. Heck, I bet he would have had every member of the Rutgers Womens Team on his show, one at a time if neccessary.
Now, it will go on for a few days, a new News cycle will come, and nothing will change.

Correct you are, Peter. I'll miss Imus in the morning.

Meh. I think Jon Rogers got closest to it. Imus made a sexist, somewhat racist comment on a group of people who had less money, power and stature than he did. A year from now, nobody would have remembered these kids; they certainly are not going to be rich or wield a lot of influence.

Make the same comment on Whitney Houston or Lil Kim? Nobody would have batted an eye.

It was the confluence of all three factors that was so offensive.

I think we have too much of a black or white mentality these days. There doesn't seem to be much consideration for context or content.
Imus is an old man who made a dumb joke. He apologized and that should be it.
Sharpton has no right to hold a meeting with the head of the network to demand Imus be fired. Why not have a boycott like King did with the buses?
Or, better yet, why not take all the time and money he spends on these little non-issues of racial sensitvity and work to get tuition and scholarships for all the young black kids who live in inner cities and don't see college as an option. If he wants to improve the community then this isn't doing anything helpful for anybody.

Has the video of the German soldier training his men by telling them to shoot on African-Americans have much of an impact in the US? How is it viewed?

"The price of free speech is that sometimes you get offended."

"The problem of saying something is accepting the consequences that follow."

"Has the video of the German soldier training his men by telling them to shoot on African-Americans have much of an impact in the US? How is it viewed?"

This has flown beneath my radar. I don't know what you're referring to.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2007 07:56 PM:

""Has the video of the German soldier training his men by telling them to shoot on African-Americans have much of an impact in the US? How is it viewed?"

This has flown beneath my radar. I don't know what you're referring to."

Here is a link to this news item.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2443240,00.html

I had to google for it in English, since I heard about it in the Hebrew media. Al Sharpton's name was mentioned, so it reminded me of this discussion.

Apparently it's a video posted by a German soldier showing a serjeant training his men by telling them to imagine they are shooting African-Americans in the Bronx.

I don't know how long this story has been running, and whether it has made it into the Israeli media today of all days because it's the Holocaust memorial day. Maybe it's not a major event except for us here.

"The problem of saying something is accepting the consequences that follow."

And why is the consequence of words ANYTHING more that more words?

Destroying a man's livelihood over words is pretty fascist in my book.

Has the video of the German soldier training his men by telling them to shoot on African-Americans have much of an impact in the US? How is it viewed?

Anti-American craziness by Europeans has become too commonplace to have much of an impact anymore, even when it's really ugly, like this one. When the best selling book in France was one that claimed the Pentagon was not actually hit by an airliner but was blown up by the government...you just roll your eyes and move on.

The only surprising thing is that he would bother making a distinction between Black and White Americans. I wonder, would a Black man in Germany be most likely an American soldier? Anyway, we have enough idiots of our own to worry about.

"Anti-American craziness by Europeans has become too commonplace to have much of an impact anymore."

I've heard that there is an anti-american sentiment among some europeans, but I don't think this is one of those cases.

I think if you went through every army in the world you'll find drill serjeants saying racist and sexist things to hype up their soldiers. And I think the only think this german soldier knows about blacks is what he's seen on TV: i.e. scary criminals.

Anyway, I don't consider it a major event, just something of interest considering the original discussion. And I wanted to hear if it had any impact.

By the way, being an Israeli with American family ties I have to admit I have some prejudices about Europe that are not always justified.

I noticed something interesting during this whole Imus coverage, besides the fact that he was still alive, all the TV coverage has focused on the outrage being over the "nappy-headed hos" comment. I first read about the incident in the newspaper. The paper mentioned the "hos" comment, but it also referred to Imus calling the teams "the jigaboos vs. the wannabes". I think this is why some people are surprised about the backlash of saying "hos". The TV media has yet to say anything regarding the "J vs.W" comment, at least as far as I've seen. Selective journalism or censorship or fear of using the term "jigaboo", I'm not sure which it is other than being sloppy for not reporting the whole story.

I realize that I am coming back to this party way late, but I did want to clarify something. In regards to a comment that Micha made way upthread, I was not saying that Don Imus is necessarily a racist. He engaged in bigoted speech often, but I don't know if he actually is a racist, or if he was just employing a schtick. Just as I cannot say that he isn't a racist based solely on his repeated comments, I cannot say with certainty that he isn't a bigot because he has Black children at his ranch also. Just because they are there does not mean that he doesn't feel that they are inferior. All I can say is that I don't have enough information to judge what is in his heart. Either way, I for one had grown tired of his bigoted comments, about all groups, not just Black people. As I said before, I was very offended by what he said and what he had said before, but I didn't want him to be fired. I had hoped that the suspension and firestorm would serve as an educational tool for him. I had hoped that he would realize that the time had come for him to lose the hate speech from his repertoire. I wanted he and others to utilizing the same tactics that people have had enough of this and are not going to just sit back and be denigrated any more. Enough has been enough. It is possible to do crude, shocking humor without resorting to the basest stereotypes and generalizations there are. I also want to say that hip-hop has also played into that feeling for me as well. As many other Black people have, I am tired of the depictions of us that are prevalent in the music to be the defining image of us as a people. We are so much more than that, and I want other groups, and just as importantly, us ourselves to realize that. Just because it hasn't gotten the media coverage doesn't mean that there aren't those of us who have had many negative things to say about hip-hop.
One thing that I have gathered from this incident, is that Imus is quite intelligent. He apparently promised to learn from this incident, and I would have liked to seen whether he would have been true to his word. I have to say that even though I don't know whether he actually is a bigot or not I have gained some measure of respect for him. He owned up to his responsibility for these remarks and acknowledged that his own behavior brought about this incident. It sounds to me as if he may have actually learned a great lesson from this, but it is possible that we'll never know. I hope that if he does move to sirius or xm that he doesn't forget the lessons that he's learned here, even if the message has gotten drowned out by all the noise from either side of the debate.

1" The paper mentioned the "hos" comment, but it also referred to Imus calling the teams "the jigaboos vs. the wannabes". I think this is why some people are surprised about the backlash of saying "hos". "
Actually, that comment was made in reference to Spike Lee's movie School Daze, and it was made by one of Imus' sidekicks. And eventhough Imus is considered a shock jock, he speaks from a different platform than other shock jocks because his show is politically charged, for the most part, so his comments have more weight than say Howard Stern whose show is purely comical in nature.

Marcus, I stand corrected.

Your post seems to me to be most balanced assessment of this whole issue. It is the only only one that bridges between the point of view that saw Imus's words as offensive and those that are concerned with the implications of the response to his words.

I'm a big fan of balance.