Exactly. It isn't just the words but the weight of history and power behind the words that gives them potency. It doesn't mean it is any more "right" and "okay" but it does mean it has more potency. When a white person spews racism, he has the whole history of racism and oppression as well as the power of being in white majority behind him to give his words force, much less so for a non-white. As for Sharpton and Jackson, I don't care for them myself. But their questionable statements were in the past not the present. Imus had also made many questionable statements in the past and wasn't called for it either. But now in the era of youtube and internet and 24/7 news, times are different. If Sharpton and Jackson make questionable comments now, they wouldn't be let off the hook that easily either (see Michael Ray Richardson or Tim Hardaway).
So what you are saying is that a different standard should be applied to whites and blacks in terms of getting away with comments that may be construed as racist? That sounds a bit like a discriminatory practice to me. I guess equality only applies when you are talking about minority rights? My race gets mocked all the time in the media - and people laugh and say it's funny. If people make a funny indian accent - it's funny. I find it disgustingly moronic and offensive. People can go on TV and do it - and it's ok. But a republican politician can't get away with it, because white liberals will come to my race's defense. But they can still make fun of our "accent" or anything else. Whatever. It's so hypocritical and smells so foul it really makes me ill. I feel like blacks can cry about "nappy headed ho's" because a white man instead of a black man said it - and that's the stupidest thing on earth. That's the real racist thing about this whole affair - that a black guy can insult his own race but a white guy can't insult another. If you really think about that - that's discriminatory in and of itself. Either something is speakable or it's not. You can't layer 50 conditions on it and say it's wrong in one context and ok in another. All Al Shapie "that dirty old white man did it" and Jesse the cracker Jacskon had to do was call on the listeners of IMUS to boycott his show. They would have proven a much stronger point - and come out far ahead if they had done that instead of calling for his firing.
Oh that's hogwash. Al sharpton is a racist. Imus is not. The racist got the non-racist banned by playing the race card. That's what happened.
Have you ever been put into a situation where you had to stand in front of cameras (and radio mikes) broadcasting you, and anything you might say, nationwide? They did remarkably well, considering. I think I'd rather sit through another root canal if the choice were that or listening to that coach for another 3 hours. Well, it felt like 3 hours. She's had her 15 minutes, plus whatever ungodly amount extra that she was given. Geez. D&D. 15 Minutes in Orbit.
I think this would make a GREAT south park episode..... Screenplay: Hot new song "Yous a nappy headed ho" hits the charts Cut to blinged out rapper singin yous a nappy headed ho Cut to club where all races are dancing to "yous a nappy headed ho" Cut to Black college girls bball team lockerroom playing "yous a nappy headed ho" to get pumped up Cut to old white imus saying "nappy headed ho" *Record screech* total silence multiple random people: O MY GOD. did he just say what I think he said???? Worldwide protests Imus effiges burned at stakes Total chaos
Myself a non-minority and many others from minority groups have tried to explain this to you. Context does matter. The history of being the short end of the systematic oppression stick (be African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, some Asian decent groups) does make it different when a White uses a racial slur. Further, when one's own group uses it it may be part to reclaim it, to own it, to not forget history until the playing field is fair, maybe just because they think it is funny among friends. Could be many reasons, but in all cases it is different than a blanket out of context statement by a White. Even Almu, who is really upset at Imus being fired, and who uses various slurs, admits he only does it in context (only when people already know who he is and the meaning by it). What is so weird as so many people think minorities are so "oversensitive" then at the same time they are hypersensitive to the idea they may have biases and prejudice based on ethnicity and race. Is it reasonable that it is more threatening to being thought of as having bias (we probably all do--and all need to be dilegent in checking it) and talking about it than it is to be on the wrong end of a slur if you are part of a group where American history isn't kind. I would think thinking you have been discriminated against is a lot more hurtfull and emotional than thinking another thinks you are biased. The anger from many Whites concerning any discussion of racism, prejudice and discrimination is weird. Man, we all need to have an open dialogue about race, ethnicity and culture. We (Americans) would rather talk about our most intimate personal lives before an open discussion about it. Now I will say racisim and racist is very loaded and probably thrown around too much to explain events among people (though not in Imus case)--but that is far from the biggest hurdle in growing in this area.
Actually, this issue shows perfectly the reasoning behind some white people's sensitivity to accusations of racism, or the throwing of the race card. Imus supported Ford, railed against the lack of response to Katrina because he felt the people of New Orleans were being ignored for being black, etc. Not exactly the acts of a racist. He made a joke that didn't come off well about some girls that probably didn't even hear his show (drawing a parallel and using the verbiage of a Spike Lee movie). Some of the professional activists (headlined by two shockingly racist people) got wind of it and made a big deal out of it. The targets of the joke forgave Imus. In the end, Imus was fired. Who really suffered here? The Rutgers women's basketball team? If it hadn't been pointed out to them, they would likely have never even known about it. Even if they were all fanatical Imus listeners, they would have at most had their feelings hurt. So, hurt feelings for the "victims" of the "racism" and in the meanwhile the perpetrator of the "racism" is fired. This is the fear that people have about falsely being called a racist. Maybe in the past the person in Imus's position would have been a dangerous racist and instead of making a joke he would have called for someone to by lynched, and his rabid followers would have complied. he would have been ignored or even commended by a racist public. Under those circumstances, it would be far worse to be the victim instead of the perpetrator. In the current event, the reverse is true.
I'm humored and saddened by some of the posts that question the right of certain groups or races to feel "offended" by speech. Using this logic is dangerous. "Slippery slope" dangerous. If I or my friends use terms such as "cracker" or "trailer trash" or "redneck whiteboy" with impunity and in a derisive manner towards whites the result is the same as if we're impugned by them. You see, when we start distinguishing and rationalizing differences to justify our divisive actions we're doing the very thing Dr. King warned about when he spoke about one day creating a society "where all men can live together as brothers, where every man will respect the dignity and the worth of human personality". Again, let's extrapolate this logic regarding the acceptance of one subset of society using derisive, demeaning terms but not another: When does it end? In forty years? In one hundred years? Or does it just go on indefinitely as some sort of "social penance" that must be paid in perpetuity? We are being derelict in our social duty by not realizing that we -- as a society -- have the capability to hurt others with our words. Period. It doesn't matter the color of the speaker's skin. Nor does it matter the color of the audience's skin. We all have the capability to hurt. And the ability to feel hurt. By diminishing a group's "right" to feel insulted is to inherently foster a continuation of racial discord that, realistically, probably will never go away.
When I was a kid and dealing with racism, the one thing that brought me trough was that there was a higher a truth. That things like freedom of speech mattered. Call me insane, but I'd defend that to the end. It's what I love about this country - what I hold dear, and what I feel most strongly about. I will always support freedom of expression - no matter how offensive or even if it is considered racist.
Then why do you have a problem with CBS's freedom to choose what's on it's airwaves? Read the Constitution again - freedom of speech has nothing to do with private enterprise.
Except the perpetrator has full control of his or her actions. The victim doesn't. The perp can choose not to be a perp but simply not saying stupid things on national radio. As someone else said, Imus likes to be controversial - so he got his wish and started a controversy.
No one is challenging CBS' right to do what they did but their decision is a fair target for criticism. BTW, what kind of comedy or music, if any, does CBS publish? We had four editorials in our morning paper. Three were defending Imus (not his remarks) and critical of the piling on being done. One was in support of it all. None were Imus "fans."
People are complex and do all kinds of things for a variety of reasons. I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming Imus is a racist... and certainly not in the Bull Conner sense of a racist. However, what he did say at that moment was racist. Once again, read the transcript. The "nappy-headed hos" comment generated the discussion of Lee's movie, not the other way around. And I find it curious that a lot of folks are making the argument that you have to have to have heard it for you to have standing to complain about it. The corollary being that if only people hadn't talked about it, the Rutgers team would not have heard about it and nothing would have happened. This is absurd. You can't give a guy a national radio show and then tell people not to talk about what he said. That's the whole purpose of the enterprise and when your main guy says something people find offensive that's the risk of such an enterprise. Even if he didn't have a radio show, there is no presumption anywhere that you have to be in the immediate company of somebody for their actions to have an effect. All the guys who lost their retirements at Enron weren't in the room when the deals were made, so if only the press hadn't reported the Enron scandal, we wouldn't have to hear them whine, right?
Yet you won't defend freedom of expression for women in the Kingdom. Fascinating. D&D. Replicants have Feelings. Real or Imagined?
How many racists express their admiration for a number of members of a race in the same breath that they are denegrating an equal number of members of said race. As he was calling the Rutgers team rough looking and nappy headed, he was saying that the Lady Vols were all cute. Was his statement racist when he started talking but suddenly he liked black people again when he finished talking about Rutgers and started talking about Tennessee? I don't agree that what he said was racist. I think it could be interpreted that way, but that is not where he was going with it. I have read the transcript. You are assuming that he was not heading there on purpose, and that somehow Imus saying nappy headed hos immediately brought School Daze to the mind of McGuirk. I am assuming that they had that in mind all along, possibly even scripted. To me, School Daze was not such a runaway hit that it would spring to mind immediately upon hearing the words nappy headed 20 years after the movie came out. I already addressed this when I talked about the hypothetical situation of the Rutgers team being Imus fans. Even in that unlikely scenario, the worst that would happen is that they get their feelings hurt. Personally, I doubt that even really happened, but if this really affected them, like this is the worst thing they have ever heard, then it still seems like a tremendous overreaction to fire him. You mention Enron. It doesn't matter if the people heard the deals being made, they felt the effects when they lost their pensions. The actions of the Enron execs affected them directly. The words in the deal room were not the problem in that case. If the people were never told that there were shady deals, they still would feel the same effects of losing everything. If the Rutgers team was never told that someone called them nappy headed hoes (in the context of a joke) they would not have been affected by it one bit. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have told them about it, or that this is a reason that Imus shouldn't be fired (when broadcasting, one should assume that everyone will hear it, and act accordingly), just stating a fact.
