Race, Class, and Language
[Since we ended up covering many of these issues on our Ralph Ellison's America show, we sent this one to the graveyard.]
Leave it to nother to channel exactly what we were talking about today:
Race, class, and language. The Right is defending Imus by claiming that African Americans use that language…so let’s take their argument head on. Should we discuss who — in this country of free speech — can use derogatory language about race? Can the youth say it; Chris Rock; only African Americans? Have we reached a point that it shouldn’t be cool for anyone — anytime, to use that language?
Nother, in a comment to Open Source, 4/13/07
Here’s Michelle Malkin’s version of that argument, one I sent around the office yesterday in near disbelief because for the first time I realized I half agreed with her. (For the record, it’s worth noting that Malkin’s piece isn’t a defense of Imus; it’s an indictment of much of the dominant American popular culture.)
Is it time to talk once again about who — and when, and how, and why — can say what?
April 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Get Bill Cosby as a guest
Cynthia Tucker on Cosby’s the Ghettoesburg Address aka Pound Cake Speech:
But isn’t it about time that black Americans acknowledge that, at the dawn of the 21st century, personal responsibility has at least as much to do with success in America as race?
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1143594/posts
http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm
April 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Personal responsibility is at core of free speech.
Yes, you can say whatever you want, but if you must take personal responsibility for it, you will know better what to say and what not to say.
Imus had no idea he would be held personally responsible – now Imus knows full well.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Now we should take Bill Maher to task for his misogynistic tendencies.
We have to admit that we hold a different standard for entertainers and politicians. We need the George Carlin’s of the world, but we don’t need them to be Water Cronkite.
It’s this new breed of journalistic-tainers - guys like Imus and Maher and Dennis Miller and even Jon Stewart - that want to walk that line of irony; these are the guys we have to watch very carefully. When they screw up, it’s oh, I’m a comedian, it was a bad joke?
So who I really blame is the politicians who sell out and enable these jerks like Imus and Maher. (although I agree with Maher’s politics, he is still a jerk).
April 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Two big issues here, as I see it. The easy one is that civility has been on a long bender and seemingly has to hit bottom before recovery is possible. It might as well take the form of Imus, whose fall will be well-cushioned.
Secondly, I always wondered who the Right was talking about when they prattled on about our “values-free” society. Listening to all the defenders of Imus, I now see them in stark relief. They are us! By that I mean, they are in our tent. I’m no absolutist, but does that mean there are no lines to be drawn? I’m really tired of the slippery-slope argument which seems to put one on an Abu Gharib box - one step in any direction means certain doom.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Lumiere: “But isn’t it about time that black Americans acknowledge that, at the dawn of the 21st century, personal responsibility has at least as much to do with success in America as race?”
Whoa. What a way to start the comment thread, Lumiere. A year ago I would have disagreed with you on principal. I spent the past summer working in the 9th Ward of New Orleans. After that experience, I disagree with you based on what I have seen, the people I have talked to, the FACTS that I know.
One of the most shocking aspects of the ongoing discrimination I witnessed is a form which is not often addressed. It is environmental discrimination. Factories and industrial plants often set themselves up in neighborhoods with low property values with residents who won’t or can’t complain about the company’s practices. These neighborhoods are often predominantly African American. What do these factories do that’s so awful? Sometimes it’s illegal dumping, sometimes it’s just normal leakage associated with that type of industry. In any case, the result is that these African American neighborhoods contain very dangerous levels of highly toxic chemicals. Some of these chemicals result in high cancer rates, some cause other strange and varied diseases, but one of the worst cases is heavy metal poisoning. Heavy metals build up in the nervous systems of children, and by the time they are school-age, they show significant reduction in IQ from the poisoning. It goes without saying that since these are low-income neighborhoods, most families can’t afford the expensive medical procedures which they and their children need.
This is just one example of the many types of discrimination which have been going on for generations and have a very long-lasting impact. This is not simply a ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ situation. Intentional and unintentional targeting of African Americans to receive all the shit we can dump on them has taken its toll on a very large segment of the population.
It is ridiculous to think that if African Americans stopped using the dreaded ‘n word’, and started wearing suits or taking yoga classes that all of a sudden a few hundred years of America’s refuse would be lifted off their shoulders.
It’s the bootstrap rhetoric which has made the civil rights movement stagnate over the past 40 years. It’s time to own up to the fact that a lot of African Americans aren’t just being dealt bad hands, they aren’t even sitting at the card table.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
BoBo:
That quote is Cynthia Tucker agreeing with Bill Cosby.
The personal responsibility that Cosby was talking about was for individuals and community members. In your example, it would be the owners of the factories who have to take personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility gets around restricting free speech:
say what you want, but be responsible for what you say.
Imus was being irresponsible regarding his power position.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
You should get Curtis Blow as a guest - the first ‘hip hop’ artist to be signed for >$1M back in the 80’s. He is strongly against the use of violence, disrespect for women, or racial identity. Ask him about the “chains” (i.e. ‘bling’) popular with rap artists. Find Curtis via myspace.com
April 13th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Lumiere: Sorry for the slight misinterpretation on the source of that quotation. I still stand fully behind what I said though.
My problem with the whole Imus scandal, and all the press around it, is that to most white Americans, THIS seems like the most serious form of racism left in our society. Withing weeks, if not already, there will be novelty tee-shirts and coffee mugs with ‘nappy-headed ho’ printed on them, for sale all across the country. It will become one of those catch phrases that loses all its original gravity, and withing a year Imus will be forgotten, and white Americans will have forgotten about race once again.
The effect of the Political Correctness debates and scandals over the last few decades is that now a lot of white Americans think they’re ‘fighting racism’ by telling their other white friends not to use the ‘n word.’ The ‘n word’ now appears to be the last great hurtle to racial equality in this country. The debate has now become focussed on something which many people see as trivial compared to other issues in the world. We only hear about racism in two situations nowadays. The first is when some random wing-nut decides he’s going to lynch a black man in the rural South, or the similar situation of inner-city, obviously racist police brutality. The second is when someone famous or semi-famous (Imus, Clooney) decides to let a few slurs slip.
Let me assure you, (IMHO) if these were the only two problems facing African Americans today, language just wouldn’t be an issue.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Bobo Says: I still stand fully behind what I said though.
No problem - the two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, they are related. Imus and the factory owner feel shielded from responsibility by their positions of power.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Michael?
Eric?
Dyson?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
In the news CBS chief executive Les Moonves was quoted as saying that he was concerned about the effect of the language on young people.
But Columbia Records has lots of gangsta rap artists who use language like that, and worse. (yes, I know there is a new CBS Records just started last year since Sony BMG bought the right to use the original logo from CBS).
I had never even heard of Don Imus before this controversy (and I’m still not exactly sure who he is or what he did for a living). But I know that the companies and advertisers who are suddenly shocked, shocked that someone would use such racist and sexist language were happy to make money off his show up to this point, and are STILL happy to make money off the rap music that continues to use such such language and imagery. What a bunch of hypocrites.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Lumiere: What happens when the moral catch-all of personal responsibility doesn’t work?
The obvious answer is punishment, but that really doesn’t happen in most cases. Although the Imus firing is very high-profile, the factory owners I’m talking about are still poisoning black New Orleans to this day. So do we then just increase enforcement? Should we have a race police? Or a Class or Gender Police?
I don’t ask these questions in jest. With all of the horrors perpetrated against minority groups in America (and around the world), maybe they should have special police and militias looking out for their interests. But I don’t think this is an issue of enforcement. Imus’s off-the-cuff assessment of strong, successful, black women was the same assessment he would give upon walking into a crack-house. This isn’t a case of isolated racism. I think that Imus’s slip-up reveals a truth that he was probably unaware of: no matter how successful and strong those women are, they will always be black women. There will never be a time in their lives when they won’t be conscious of both those facts. How often do you think Imus, or anyone, or me, thinks about their race and gender? Until we make some pretty fundamental changes, success just doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. And as a result, neither does personal responsibility.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
It’s this new breed of journalistic-tainers - guys like Imus and Maher and Dennis Miller and even Jon Stewart - that want to walk that line of irony; these are the guys we have to watch very carefully. When they screw up, it’s oh, I’m a comedian, it was a bad joke?
But that’s your label (”journalistic-tainers”) - you are defining the label and trying to tell them what their limits should be based on whether they are a “journalist” or an “entertainer”.
Imus is a guy with a microphone. Who’s to say whether he’s a “journalist” or an “entertainer” or what? Politico’s used to appear on the Dick Cavett and Johnny Carson shows; now they appear on The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. All of these guys are guys with microphones or cameras. (as is Chris and Terry Gross, etc) And what are bloggers?
We have a right to free speech in the US - there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the sort of speech we are free to make depends on what label nother or plnelson attaches to someone.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Ok… I read Malkin’s piece- and all the “troubling” lyrics (which I never can get, when I hear that stuff on a radio… where it generally holds my attention for about the same length of time that Rush Limbaugh does, albeit for different reasons); and what I got from those lyrics was, primarily, Posturing Young Male Primate. There was no misogyny [actually, one guy is saying that he's emotionally secure enough that he doesn't feel any need to (hand)"cuff" his female associates]… and another is basically going “Wowee” over some pole dancer in a strip club. MM’s “interpretation” of Snoop Dogg’s comments to MTV are not really worthy of her, except as they’re her self-serving springboard to disparage Snoop while sucking up to a sympathetic white audience… duh.
With regard to Imus’ usage of black idiom (along with any other high-rolling member of the dominant culture in our society, to whom millions of similarly acculturated people are exposed, every day) here’s a hypothesis. White people have historically placed non-whites (both here & abroad) into 2 categories: the english speakers are “useful”; and the others are “quaint.” Black people have realized the ‘value’ of “quaintness”, after centuries of being forced to be ‘useful’… and Ebonics (& gullah, and various dialects) have continued to be a way in which to demonstrate a cultural presence as separable from white, english speakers as that provoked by skin color (about which they can do nothing). It’s simply a “lemonade” that can be made from the “lemons” of racism. That a rep of “the man” (Imus) should appropriate their idiom to dis their cultural heroes (sheroes?), on as powerful & public a setting as public network media, isn’t simply a “gaffe” on his part… it’s a calculated effort to reinforce the (hopefully) dwindling latent vindictiveness & racist pathology of those who resent a society that they see slipping away from total control of people like Them. (In a way, the insult is compounded by its source in a field- Entertainment- that’s one of the few pursuits that’s relatively “open” to blacks… and the insult is aimed at those in the “other” available field- Sports- in which blacks may realize an “even playing field”, socio-economically… but so what? We’ve come a long way since Gov. Faubus could pontificate about God “putting the White man in America… and the Black man in Africa… and have an audience that agreed with him.)
I found it rather tender to hear David Brooks wistfully recall what a pleasure it was to partake of Imus’ offerings in group sessions with other media folks… the wonks & pundits, such as himself, and the hairy-chested, two-fisted talkers like Don- who is, essentially, a chest-thumping, wanna-be-dominant Primate… just like the rappers that Malkin despises. ^..^
April 13th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
ps I second Sylvio Rabioso’s speaker nominee, Michael Eric Dyson- an excellent choice! ^..^
April 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Imus and the factory owner feel shielded from responsibility by their positions of power.
Who decides what that responsibility is? Who enforces it?
Do successful, high-profile gansta-rap artists who also promote negative images of black prople, and especially black women, have a responsibility for their words?
Political correctness, and censorship resulting from groupthink, is a dangerously slippery slope. As a writer, poet, photographer and artist I’m very worried about creating some kind of code of conduct or rulebook circumscribing free expression.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
The Imus fireing is wrong for so many reasons. First and most importantly Imus was fired for exercising his right to free speech.. I have heard only a few people speak of this. Does any one even have as to what this whole thing is about?
Imus is a controversial shock jock. He is on the air to voice his opinion on various subjects,from political to social. Much of what he sais is offensive and stupid. You can either listen or change the dial. Now he has been silenced because he gave an opinion on a subject,and it upset someone.
You would think in America that a person would have a right to speak on any subject they felt like.
This all started years ago with people being silenced for using the word nigger then it was fag, now it is nappy headed ho. What is next?
Someone once said freedom is having the right to be offended.
I don’t even want to get into NBC and Munves they are nothing but whores. As to the black community taking responsibility for it’s own destructive culture that is something you could write a book about.
Political correctness and censorship are destroying the citizens right to do and say what they believe. Why don’t all the pc thought police people just get togeather and start their effort to change the first amndt.
This whole episode and others like it sicken me. Anyone in favor of Imus being fired is not a real American, or certainly have very little respect for a persons right to free speech.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Bobo Says: So do we then just increase enforcement? Should we have a race police? Or a Class or Gender Police?
In RI we have two environmental police: CRMC and DEM
One reports to the legislature
One reports to the governor
Bobo Says: How often do you think Imus, or anyone, or me, thinks about their race and gender? Until we make some pretty fundamental changes, success just doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. And as a result, neither does personal responsibility.
I’m not seeing the connection between a definition of success and personal responsibility. You can define success any way you want – those who have power, such as IMUS, should exhibit greater personal responsibility – if that isn’t obvious to you, it is completely obvious to IMUS now.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
plnelson Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm Who decides what that responsibility is? Who enforces it?
Do successful, high-profile gansta-rap artists who also promote negative images of black prople, and especially black women, have a responsibility for their words?
####
Yes 100% Snoop knows the dif:
Snoop Dogg: Imus Words, Rap Lyrics Don’t Compare
“We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—-as say we in the same league as him.†Rap star Snoop Dogg said in a expletive-filled interview with MTV News Tuesday that Don Imus’ use of the the slang “ho” is a “completely different scenario” than the use of word in rap lyrics.
plnelson Says: Political correctness, and censorship resulting from groupthink, is a dangerously slippery slope. As a writer, poet, photographer and artist I’m very worried about creating some kind of code of conduct or rulebook circumscribing free expression.
####
Personal Responsibility is a personal ethos – if someone feels that making racists remarks is the responsible thing to do, then they are jerks.
The ethos comes from education and parental guidance. Read Cosby’s speech:
http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm
Imus did what he did b/c he thought he could get away with it –
April 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
rc21 Says: The Imus fireing is wrong for so many reasons.
Imo, he was fired b/c his sponsors quit – not for exercising his right to free speech.
He was fired for being a jerk – he didn’t get up and defend himself on his first amendment rights to free speech – he knew he was wrong
April 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
RC–as Michelle Malkin says, boo-freakin’-hoo. If Don Imus wants to stand on a street corner and call everyone who walks by whatever nasty name he wants, he may well have the right. But like every other overpaid TV personality, he’s a slave to advertisers and it was the advertisers’ pulling out that sealed his fate. It’s not about free speech, it’s about staying within the bounds of what’s considered decent by the folks who are paying your salary. He didn’t get dragged off to jail for saying what he said; he was punished for a graceless, mean-spirited remark that fell on millions of the wrong ears. If you want to bend the rules–and btw I’m one of those who’s distinctly unhappy with the state of rap and hip-hop culture these days–you have to do it with a degree of wit, grace and style. I’ve laughed at jokes I shouldn’t have because they tickled me; I still find the expression “wife-beater” for a Stanley-Kowalski undershirt charmingly descriptive. But Imus blundered clumsily and rudely–and pointlessly–and he lost his job (no doubt he’ll get another soon…). And here you are, waxing nostalgic for the days when you could freely call people fags and niggers without tedious social approbation…cry me a river.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Richard Pryor took personal responsibility:
His visit to Kenya in 1979 was life-changing and resulted in a condemnation of the word nigger. His abandonment of the word in his stage performances attracted death threats, hate mail and attacks on his home from some deranged former fans. But he stuck to his beliefs, never losing any of his funny.
http://www.richardpryor.com/0/4113/0/1240/
April 13th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Bill Cosby on personal responsibility:
I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if get caught with it you’re going to embarrass your mother.
Not you’re going to get your butt kicked.
No.
You’re going to embarrass your mother. You’re going to embarrass your family.
Don Imus embarrassed us all.
http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm
April 13th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
(rc21) “The Imus fireing is wrong for so many reasons. First and most importantly Imus was fired for exercising his right to free speech.. I have heard only a few people speak of this. Does any one even have as to what this whole thing is about?”-
Sure… it’s about an A-hole losing his overpaid job because his bosses thought it was gonna cost them Money… and if you want him back, just get a bunch of like-minded folks to pound those show sponsors about that. AND, if there’s enough of you, they’ll convince his boss to hire him back. ^..^
April 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
####
Yes 100% Snoop knows the dif:
Snoop doesn’t “know” the diff, he has an opinion about the diff. His opinion is no more or less valid than mine or yours or Imus’.
plnelson Says: Political correctness, and censorship resulting from groupthink, is a dangerously slippery slope. As a writer, poet, photographer and artist I’m very worried about creating some kind of code of conduct or rulebook circumscribing free expression.
####
Personal Responsibility is a personal ethos – if someone feels that making racists remarks is the responsible thing to do, then they are jerks.
But you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If it’s a “personal” ethos then Imus is welcome to his and you are welcome to yours. A racist may be a jerk in your opinion but that’s just YOUR personal ethos.
The whole thing about living in a free society with freedom of expression is that one man’s expression is another man’s immorality. I’m arn artist and I run a website featuring what I regard to be beautiful female nudes. Some people might regard it to be pornography. They have their ethos; I have mine.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:07 am
plnelson Says:
April 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm “Who decides what that responsibility is? Who enforces it?
Do successful, high-profile gansta-rap artists who also promote negative images of black prople, and especially black women, have a responsibility for their words?”
I suppose they do, yes… and perhaps it’s THEIR place to judge what constitutes a “negative image”- along with those of whom they speak- but not yours, since you’re not involved, really, are you?
(ibid) “Snoop doesn’t “know†the diff, he has an opinion about the diff. His opinion is no more or less valid than mine or yours or Imus’..”-
If Snoop’s opinion “is no more or less valid than”(etc), we’re promoting an egalitarianism that doesn’t recognize education?.. or professional expertise?.. or taste?.. or culture? Really? If so, then I suppose we are a “values-free” society… simply a collection of opinionated ethos-bearers, whose proclivities shan’t be judged beyond the innards of those who practice them… ^..^
April 14th, 2007 at 7:22 am
herbert browne Says: we’re promoting an egalitarianism that doesn’t recognize education?.. or professional expertise?.. or taste?.. or culture?
Let me add:
the ability to learn, to appreciate, and, most important to western culture, to progress.
There was a guy in my arts group who said about art:
you either like it, or you don’t
And he had an MFA!!!!!!!
lollollollollollollol
April 14th, 2007 at 8:05 am
pln, if women find your art offensive than I guess going by the opinions and thinking of most of the people on this forum your art should be banned.
The fact that Imus is a bitter racist moron is totally beside the point in this whole debate.
Imus and others who use language and express opinions that the majority of us find offensive are the people who need the most protection from those who would seek to censor or erase their speech,art,music, or writings.
It’s incredible that so many supposed intelligent people just don’t understand this.
My question to all the people who feel Imus should be fired for his racist insensitive comments. Do you all feel Rosie O’Donnell should be fired for her inflammatory speech about christians.
In response to people talking about thir fear of another extremist muslim terror attack. She stated to a national audience that she feared attacks from christianity much more than from muslims. This was clearly inflamotry abusive, hurtfull, and dangerous speech aimed at a group of people Rosie seems to dislike. Never mind that what she said was based on absolutely no factual data. The USA has never come under attack from christian terror groups that are intent on over throwing the US government.
Where is the outrage?
April 14th, 2007 at 9:00 am
rc21 Says: Imus should be fired for his racist insensitive comments.
Skimming back over the thread, I don’t see anyone saying that (with one possible exception, which was a vague suggestion to blame politicians).
What has been said here was that he got fired for losing sponsors.
Are you suggesting that sponsors promote an offensive association with their products?
Imus could have defended himself on a free speech/shock jock ethos, but he didn’t try - that is very telling.
The issue is cut and dry for me and it isn’t about free speech. What has been said here is that one is free to be a jerk and speak like one. The operative word is free – the constitution doesn’t say jerks MUST be compensated.
Rosie doesn’t have a show of her own, does she?
April 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
If Snoop’s opinion “is no more or less valid thanâ€(etc), we’re promoting an egalitarianism that doesn’t recognize education?.. or professional expertise?.. or taste?.. or culture?
But we are all part of the culture and the language belongs to all of us. No one “owns” vernacular language or its uses. As a writer and poet I’m especially interested in the way words emerge out of the surrounding culture and are free to be used by anyone, in any way that seems useful.
Snoop is a wealthy high profile influential entertainer. He’s as welcome to his opinion about what it’s like to be an oppressed, poor woman in a violent and mysogynistic culture as anyone else, but he doesn’t own the language or its uses.
My point about gangsta rappers is that they have achieved tons of wealth and influence using the same means as Imus - being shocking and provocative, racist and mysogynistic, so it’s hypocritical of them to complain. Infact what they do every day is so much like what Imus did that one might be forgiven for thinking that their reaction is a matter of seeing someone else horning in on their (very lucratice) turf.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
rc21 says pln, if women find your art offensive than I guess going by the opinions and thinking of most of the people on this forum your art should be banned.
I think it’s interesting that you think that it’s “women” who complain. As far as I know none of the complaints have come from women, or at least not from women claiming to represent women-as-women, feminists, etc.
All of the complaints I’ve had about my website have come from self-styled morality police and religious nuts who seem to patrol the internet looking for stuff that offends them The weird thing is that my work is not even explicit strictly “R” not “X”.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Is this another installment in our “Race and Class” series? I think so..
Yo greenbrier my sentiments and I echo others here:
Don Imus still has his free speech; he can go to Central park and collect a crowd. He just does not have the public air waves or the sponsors. They did not want to be associated with him because of the groundswell of public reaction. Imus was well rewarded (10 million a year?) for his schtick. Now it’s over. Maybe that is why he was paid so well:what he did was risky. Now it’s over. No more “power positionâ€.
I disagree with Malkin and her interpretation of Snoop; rappers are in a different category. If that stuff offends you, don’t buy it, don’t listen to it.
“It’s a completely different scenario,” said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. “[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—–as say we in the same league as him.”
Bobo’s probably right: Withing weeks, if not already, there will be novelty tee-shirts and coffee mugs with ‘nappy-headed ho’ printed on them, for sale all across the country. It will become one of those catch phrases that loses all its original gravity, and withing a year Imus will be forgotten, and white Americans will have forgotten about race once again.
And Herbert Browne too probably: That a rep of “the man†(Imus) should appropriate their idiom to dis their cultural heroes (sheroes?), on as powerful & public a setting as public network media, isn’t simply a “gaffe†on his part… it’s a calculated effort to reinforce the (hopefully) dwindling latent vindictiveness & racist pathology of those who resent a society that they see slipping away from total control of people like Them
If it’s so do you suppose that Imus was conscious of that? Until now he was not required to reflect.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
From David Carr’s column, “ Flying Solo Past the Point of No Return†April 13 2007New York Times [behind the wall]:
“All the elements were there,†said James Carville, the political consultant who has appeared on the show and has seen a few stories blow up in his time. “You had some dry brush, gasoline, high winds, no rain and low humidity and before you know it, man, it was a wildfire.â€â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..
News thrives on the same thing entertainment does: character and narrative. In this case, a barely repentant curmudgeon had effectively mugged Cinderella. “It is a perfect story,†said Martin Kaplan, a professor of media and entertainment at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. “You have a grizzled cowboy up against innocent victims.â€
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton might have résumés at odds with their status as avatars of racial rectitude, but Essence Carson, a junior with a soft hand for both the piano and the jump shot, carried no such baggage when she suggested that Mr. Imus had some explaining to do. “The Rutgers women’s team this year will go down as one of the most famous teams in history, like the ’71 Nebraska team,†Mr. Carville said.
After listening to Mr. Imus on the “Today†show, Al Roker, the weatherman who is the very picture of America’s jolly uncle, made it plain in a post on his blog: “CBS Radio and NBC News need to remove Don Imus from the airwaves.â€
Who countered for Mr. Imus? The cadre of white, accomplished males who have been his running buddies for years. He may have black friends, but they don’t show up on his show much and that broadcast apartheid left him without meaningful allies. Mr. Imus was alone and ineffective in his defense, after years of being surrounded by sycophancy that has left him reflexively entitled and ill-prepared for media opportunities in which he does not control the microphone.
A SPANKING MACHINE WITH NO EXIT Time heals, time forgets, but Mr. Imus was seeking to shore up his career immediately. Mr. Imus never caught a breath because he was in the middle of a 24-hour news cycle that kept him in the cross hairs. It is the kind of media ceremony that generally ends in a human sacrifice.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
rc21, The Imus controversy is not a fist amendment issue. Imus is still free to stand on a soapbox (or print leaflets, start a blog, sing a song, paint a picture, whatever) and say what he wants. Radio advertisers are free to decide what they want to pay for. The public is free to boycott goods that support programs they find offensive. If Imus were thrown in jail for saying something it would be a first amendment issue but employers do have the right to fire employees who jepordize their business.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
rc21 misses the point about “free speech”, which is about as completely free in a social space as is the “free market”. The right to free speech is not about protecting someone’s right to publicly disparage and defame others based on their gender or racial identity. That is not what it was intended for. With every right comes a responsibility not to abuse that right, in this case not to harm another’s reputation. A law suit brought against Imus him by ladies on the basketball team would not be unreasonable. Just as a class law suit against defametory rappers and music companies by African-American women is one way to address that abusive art form.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Good point sidewalker. Slander and defamation of character are legitimate legal complaints.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I disagree with Malkin and her interpretation of Snoop; rappers are in a different category. If that stuff offends you, don’t buy it, don’t listen to it.
How is that different from Imus?
Anyway, as the New York Times pointed out today, the South Park TV show routinely uses offensive racial, sexual, ethnic, and gender comments and remarks just as bad as anything Imus says, but they still have sponsers and airtime.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
plnelsonHow is that different from Imus? The rappers are akin to your pierced nudes. In other words you are free to create whatever you wish. Noone has to record it, give it airtime, put it in their gallery, buy it or listen to it. What you are objecting to when you object to rap or some rap and shows like South Park is it’s dissemination, it’s support by the broadcast media and sponsors.
What’s interesting about this argument is that those who usually espouse a free-market philosophy are objecting to the free-market. The response against Imus came up from the bottom; folks were about to organize shaming campaigns and boycotts that would cut into the reputations and profits of various companies.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I think Catherine Crier has it right. Though she is focussing on right-wing bigots of which there are plenty, she says that the revolt has to come from the bottom- the marketplace. It’s up to us:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/14/catherine-crier-calls-out-right-wing-bigots/
The NYTimes today published not only Frank Rich’s mea culpa about having been on the Imus show several times, but one other at least ( Tanenhaus “Playing Along with Imus”). I think he’s wrong about hip-hop lyrics. Those who appeared on the Imus show are feeling somewhat guilty for supporting him. It was business as usual but probably no more. Rich calls for a real discussion on race and class. I am glad he brought up the fact that one of the most vocal hypocrites on this Issue is Al Sharpton who has yet to apologize for his shameful role in the Tawana Brawley Case and a list of shady financial doings.
This is from Sam Tanenhaus:
Today, in the harsh light of Mr. Imus’s disgrace, it is hard to explain why none of this bothered me very much. But the truth is I tuned it out. One reason, I think, is that my position seemed paradoxical. I was pleased to have been admitted into Mr. Imus’s club — alongside famous columnists and TV pundits and celebrated authors.
But I also had been summoned into the exotic precinct of mass, or mob, culture, with its populism and prejudices, its bracing vulgarity, its base humor. And in America at least, all these characteristics are inseparable from broad popularity, the warts of our pluralism.
Those who stand outside it can seem undemocratic…….
Those of us who benefited from his attention can only feel saddened now, not only because we are indebted to him, but because we too played a part in the performance he carried too far.
Playing Along with Imus
April 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
What’s interesting about this argument is that those who usually espouse a free-market philosophy are objecting to the free-market.
No you’re just reading it wrong.
I don’t object at all to his being fired.
What I’m objecting to is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of his critics.
Imus was fired for one reason, and one reason only - commercial interests pulled out which eliminated his show’s profitability. And that’s exactly as it should be - I have long advocated that the market should have the final say in things. If people don’t like SUV’s polluting the air and warming the atmosphere they can vote with their feet or wallets and not buy them.
My objection to Imus’ critics is that they DON’T acknowledge the primacy of the market. They’re trying to make his comments out to be some great moral outrage that should not be tolerated, when they’re happy to tolerate it just fine if it makes them money.
You can bet that if prominent rappers or the producers of South Park started seeing their income decline as a result of a concerted, successful boycott, they’d be sqealing like stuck pigs and complaining that people were trying to “censor” them.
My summary: capitalism good, hypocrisy bad.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Lumiere, You avoided my question about Rosie. O. It does not matter if she has her own show or not. Sheis a major player on a network show. She is given a forum by the network to express not only hateful but dishonest speech directed at a distinct group of people. The network or B. Walters could fire her at any time if they so chose.
Why no outrage?
April 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
pln, as to your art, it matters not who complains. If some group of moralists want to complain and put forth the opinion that your art is disrespectful to women than under the current atmosphere of intolerance I would say they have a case in regards to having your art censored.
Understand I am quite against this.( I actually would not mind seeing your art.)but if we are going to go down this road of censoring things we find offensive, I’m afraid there may be a group out there that you are offending.
This is what is meant by the slippery slope theory. I think you may even have alluded to this in one of your previous posts.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I don’t know if his critics are hypocrites if they really felt that he should still be on-air. We agree about the market then. But I would go a step further and say that the networks have a perhaps primary responsibility to the people as well as to their bottom line. As it is it seems it’s to the bottom line primarily- which is not even completely okay for the sponsors. In other words- as was said on the ROS “Detroit’s Big Three and the EPA” show- demand gets created.
There is not no responsibility on anyone’s part.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I’m sorry I have to disagree with those who say the market drove out Imus. It was not the market or a groundswell of public opinion. It was the media led by Al Sharpton and the group of black journalists who called for his fireing.
There was nothing in the news for 2 days following Imuses comments. Then the media and Sharpton got hold of it and proceeded to turn this into a front page story day after day. As they so often like to do. They decided Imus had to go, not the public.
Imus had already apoligized and the apology had been accepted. but the media wanted to keep the story going and that is exactly what they did.
So yes ultimately it was the markets that led to the network sacking Imus. But it was the media and their constant non stop reporting of a minor incident that actually caused the plug to be pulled.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Mine above was to PLN.
RC21- you still don’t get it. I don’t know how else it could be said. This is not about censorship. If PLN’s art is taken to be disrespectful to women- any gallery still is free to hang it and/or he can place it on his website. No harm done; no one is forced.
That is not the same as the disseminating on the public airwaves. There is an issue of responsiblity. And by extension the mass production and advertising of SUV’s in the face of climate change and fighting wars for oil also cannot be left strictly to the marketplace. I disagree with PLN about that.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
RC21- Do you remember what happened to Howard Dean- the scream? That’s today’s media. If you are going to risk- that’s what may happen. Al Sharpton did not turn it into a front page story all by himself.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
PLN I have long advocated that the market should have the final say in things.
No. Not in all things.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
rc21 Says: You avoided my question about Rosie. O.
ok I had to Google to find out what show you are watching:
The View, a position where some of her opinions and views have generated widespread media coverage.
Bingo!
First, she makes the show self referential – if there is no news, she is the news!
Second, not only is she judgmental, but the viewers get to be judgmental too. Let me guess: she says something stupid and the others jump down her throat, right? See, that is a complete moral thought for the viewer – no controversy.
That is why she is on air – she is a producer’s dream. She generates ratings and sponsors love it. And it is the right format for her - to have others correcting her.
You’re comparison is out of context – Imus’s speech was mean spirited and not relevant to anything specific.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Sh be Your -
how many times has that been done?
usually it is verso: your instead of you are
April 16th, 2007 at 6:05 am
(from plnelson) ..”But we are all part of the culture and the language belongs to all of us. No one “owns†vernacular language or its uses. As a writer and poet I’m especially interested in the way words emerge out of the surrounding culture and are free to be used by anyone, in any way that seems useful..”-
And if you published a poem, you’d expect to have copywrite protection of your intellectual property, no doubt… It’s fascinating to compare cultural attitudes, & norms, to discover how people deal with these issues. For example, most indigenous N. Americans didn’t recognize “land ownership” (although claims to “priority access” to certain resources was recognized). In my region, the stories told by members of the various tribes (& clans within those tribes) were considered to be the property of those clans- and permission had to be sought, in order for ‘others’ to tell them. This is the case to this day, among those who honor the cultural traditions of these peoples. Cultural imperialism is nothing new, of course… and the irony of those who feel no need to acknowledge past practices on some levels howl at the “piracy” of the entrepeneurial possessors of duplicating equipment who make copies of comics, software, CDs & DVDs, etc. The “treasure hunt” of those engaged in patenting fragments of genetic material, and the ‘copycat’ manufacture of certain classes of chemicals & drugs are also subjects likely to engender raised brows & wrinkled foreheads among some folks.
(from rc21) ..”There was nothing in the news for 2 days following Imuses comments. Then the media and Sharpton got hold of it and proceeded to turn this into a front page story day after day. As they so often like to do. They decided Imus had to go, not the public..”-
Waiiiit a minute- “the media” was part of this FROM THE START- BECAUSE IMUS IS “THE MEDIA”, TOO. So, if it’s “The Media” vs “The Media”, guess who wins?.. and who loses? When Imus has talked about people who aren’t part of the Media, he wins- every time- because HE’S THE MEDIA, AND THEY AIN’T. How many times has That happened? I could care less whether he keeps his job or not… like plnelson, I’d never listened to him- and only knew the name, without any references. (That’s the trouble with Good media, like the one I pay for- NPR. It’s so engaging that I don’t bother going Outside, into Commercial-Land, to see what I’m missing… beside those great commercial messages, I mean…) ^..^
April 16th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Snoop’s ownership of cultural references is antithetical – he can only make money from his culture if it is liquefied in the marketplace.e.g. clothes music etc.
Snoop is a talented person but to parse the meaning behind his words is…eh
But hey, I’m game.
What he is saying is that the misogynic rap references are about a power dynamic that exists in the hood.
From that POV Imus’s comments make no sense at all. In fact, the power dynamic POV highlights the base nature of his comments and why people are so upset.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Regarding Imus- The New Yorker magazine is linking an article from their archives by Ken Auletta : The Don and as the title implies, Imus comes off as a real bully with quite a concession going. And that was 1998.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
(from Lumiere) ..”Snoop’s ownership of cultural references is antithetical – he can only make money from his culture if it is liquefied in the marketplace..”-
But isn’t it also prosthetic?.. ie he uses the idiom as a crutch? (OK… just having fun with “Caesar’s english”- because it’s raining, & I don’t wanna go outside, yet…) ^..^
April 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“fo’ shizzle, ma nizzle,”
…… just having fun with Snoopy talk
April 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Imus has been a shock jock for so long now, this is an old story. It cannot be his only public offense. He and his grouch bitter program are getting old and worn and would be off the air soon anyway. However, I appreciated his honesty in being a bigoted curmudgeon. The same way I appreciate but don’t agree with all aspects of Rock, Maher, Miller, Carlin, Stern, Stewart, etc… The listener knows where to stand amidst them. The advertisers shouldn’t be and probably aren’t surprised by Imus’s words. Perhaps, this is good and Imus will end up on premium airwaves like the other personalities where the listeners who want to hear him will find him. He and many mass media generalist opinion shows don’t fit into today’s varied on-demand and iPod sectional media.
the language of hip hop side: try to talk to Mr. Lif or Akrobatik, two local MCs whose music reacts to the negativity of chart topping rap, and owe their carreers to people like Curtis Blow. They don’t sell well, but are respected for their talent and words. Or, bring in someone from undergoundhiphop.com, http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/contact/#directions
April 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Also, I remember reading the Globe last week and being annoyed at the front page placement of this article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/
It is not front page news that Obama did not immediately issue a press release reacting to Sharpton’s take on Imus’s comments. An interesting question, how will will the Imus fiasco push or pull Obama’s public stance on race issues, but the article’s stance is baiting and pointing blame of (misplaced) negligence on the first call of “fire.” Perhaps Obama was busy on a presidential campaign, honing opinions on legistlative issues of hiring and firing in regards to speech, not whether a shock jock stays in his chair because Pepsi is scared.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
And if you published a poem, you’d expect to have copywrite protection of your intellectual property, no doubt…
Doubtful. There’s no money to be made in poetry so the pleasure I get in combining words in a certain novel way is when they take flight and land in some unexpected place used in some unexpected manner or for some new purpose.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Imus will end up on premium airwaves like the other personalities where the listeners who want to hear him will find him.
The WSJ suggested he’ll end up on satellite radio once the Sirius/XM merger issue is settled by the feds. WSJ said it won’t be before then b/c they won’t want to do anything controversial while their merger hearings are going on.
As I said before, I don’t even know who Don Imus is - I’ve never seen/heard (was he radio or TV?) . My only dog in this fight is the blazing hypocrisy of all the people who acted shocked by this when they either knew all about him or they’ve said just as bad or worse things themselves.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
plnelson: he’s been in radio since the 70s, and then was put on TV when cable suddenly decided it was entertainment to watch disc jockeys speak into microphones. Stern got his own TV show around the same time. Both were dull as paint to watch. Stern’s had more sparkles, but still it was drying paint.
I don’t know if all of these were quoted properly, but they do sound like him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_imus#Other_controversies
April 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Yo.
I got my Digable Planets on the speakers right now–I’m chillin, just reachin,’ kid… refutin time and space…
I gotta say, are we comparing Mr. Imus to ALL of hip hop? That doesn’t seem fair at all. You could take ALL radio hosts and maybe compare them to ALL of hip hop. There’s a comparable amount of ideological diversity. Or maybe you could compare Mr. Imus to Snoop. Or Mims. Or whoever.
I want to stand up for hip hop and say that, despite the deplorable examples of the genre you hear on the radio, the examples of rappers who do NOT call women bitches or hos, or go on endlessly about they rims and they gatts, are numerous. Here are a few examples.
Digable Planets (I know they’re oldschool, but I love them so much. The first hip hop group I fell in love with)
Common
Saul Williams
Mr. Lif and Akrobatik (the Perceptionists)
Talib Kweli, Mos Def, and DJ Hi-Tek (Black Star)
Lyrics Born
Gift of Gab, Lateef the Truth Speaka (Blackalicious)
2na Fish (Jurassic 5)
Crown City Rockers
Zion I and Tha Grouch
Guru (Gangstarr)
Then there’s the female artists, who seem to get no media coverage at all these days.
MC Lyte
Salt n Pepa
Eve
Lauryn Hill
Sarah Jones
Early hip hop artists definitely had their moments with bitches and whatnot. I mean, Eric B and Rakim, NWA, Public Enemy, and those guys were offensive sometimes, but there was a purpose to their lyrics. They were overtly political–something that Mims is most definitely NOT. Mims is barely coherent. (”This is why I’m hot. This is why I’m hot. I’m hot cuz I’m fly. You ain’t cuz you not.” Kids, can you say tautology?) The crap on the radio they call hip hop is like a weird form of nostalgia for the early 70s, when brothers really WERE getting shot at every day. It’s not the case anymore, but it’s so dramatic, and it sells so damn well, so… we get 50 Cent on the radio instead of Talib Kweli rapping about “Black Girl Pain.” I like what Talib has to say about these jokers: “I call these cats Reynolds cuz they plastic rap.”
Keep in mind also that blues, reggae, rock and roll, and jazz all have their misogyny too. Some of it’s really awful. We could go on and on. Oh, well, if you care about THIS, why aren’t you upset about THIS, and THIS, and this, etc…
So I’m just asking all y’all to be a little more nuanced when you talk about hip hop.
Also, I would suggest Ta-nehisi Coates for the show, if you can get him. He’s kind of a big shot, works for Time magazine now. He’s got some very intelligent things to say about hip hop. (He’s where I got that bit about the weird nostalgia in hip hop from.) Also Tricia Rose. Both smart, good writers, etc., who know a lot about hip hop. Of course, it would be great to have an actual hip hop artist on the show, so I second the suggestion to get Mr. Lif or Akrobatik. I love those guys.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
BTW, I think Snoop’s comment about rappers such as himself not being comparable to Imus, because Imus is talking about NICE girls, whereas Snoop is talking about the lazy bitches who want to sleep with him because he has money, is complete bullcrap. Both Imus and Snoop have an audience of millions. The women they are dissing do not. They both have the right to spout their idiocy, and try to make money doing it, but that doesn’t mean I have to listen. And I don’t. Imus is white, Snoop is black, but they’re both male, and they both have a huge power differential between them and the women they’re talking about. They’re both trying to make money portraying women (who have little to no media voice) in a negative light. The difference here is that somehow, the Rutgers women caught the attention of others with media influence.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:44 am
(from valkyrie607) ..”The difference here is that somehow, the Rutgers women caught the attention of others with media influence..”- Right- and, after reading a hundred or so comments from the Wall St. Journal (on their “vote- for/against Imus” comment page), what comes out is that Imus’ “demographic” is there- in Spades- & what you get is a steady stream of “Sharpton & Jackson got no right..” etc. My gosh- nothing about the women at all (but maybe from the occasional woman commenter). It’s all “Tawana Brawley” this and “Hymietown” that. I’m sure Imus must be gratified by the ’support’…
I liked your pitch to the range of hip hop, valkyrie… and would add the Blues Scholars to the mix of socio-political commenters who aren’t talking trash… & can be pretty good…
Q: did Imus ever put women on his show? At least the rappers seem to incorporate a fair number into THEIR productions (I know, I know… so does Miller beer & GM &… everyone selling something to Men- probably including the WSJ)… ^..^
April 17th, 2007 at 8:00 am
valkyrie607 Says: want to sleep with him because he has money, is complete bullcrap
the rap started long b4 Snoop had money: just asking all y’all to be a little more nuanced
lol
April 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I’ve posted most of this comment at The Reading Experience, but I post it here as well because it’s exactly what I think on the matter and would rather not retool it:
The problem, as ever, is not the convenient dilemma it is made out to be; the question is not, “How to deal with a powerful bigot?” The question is, “From where does his power flow?” Not merely his power to popularize books….the power, as well, to shock and to wound. Why should any Gay/black/woman/Jew care what Imus thinks or thought? If his outbursts are so outrageous; absurd; unconnected to reality (and they are, of course), how can they possibly *hurt* anyone?
Imagine I have a teenage sister who’s movie-star beautiful, with a measured IQ of 160. Classmates decide (randomly? out of jealousy?) to insult her…call her a “monkey”…call her “shit for brains”. Do I react with rage and petition the principal to expel the offenders, or do I (along with sister, family and friends)laugh at the cartoonish improbability of their remarks?
Reacting in a protective rage would imply that I secretly feared that the slander had some truth to it, no? Being ethically wrong, or, factually incorrect, deserve two very different kinds of corrective responses, yes? If, as Richard Feynmann would put it, someone (is so ignorant on a topic that he/she) “isn’t even wrong,” why respond at all?
Another parable: a man with spatulate fingers, wearing a hat, walks into a store, whereupon the clerk calls him a “spatulate-fingered hat-wearer”. The hat-wearing man is slightly confused but far from wounded. He suspects that the clerk is unhinged, possibly, but doesn’t feel denigrated by the comment. He leaves the store without suffering the slightest blow to his self-esteem.
Well, interestingly, the first definition of “nigger” in the Random House Collegiate dictionary is, “a black person”. Not an “evil” or “stupid” or “mendacious” black person…simply a black person. Hurling this epithet in order to denigrate a black person, the attempt, therefore, is to denigrate the black person as being a *black person*…as though that condition, in and of itself, were cause for shame. Think about that.
For the sake of argument, say that at least one of the women Imus described as a “nappy-headed ho” actually has, in fact, “nappy” hair. We can very well see why Imus considered the description an insult, of course…but why? What is the *implication* of this consensus? Is there something wrong with “nappy” hair? Does the force of that particular “jibe” flow directly from our own feelings about hair of that description, or the people who have it?
Further: would anyone express outrage if Martha Stewart (or fill in the blank with your own favorite powerful white lady) had been called a “ho”? No, of course not, because, regarding our casual presumptions about Martha Stewart (and despite how negative those presumptions might get), “ho” does not enter into the equation. The slander would be so improbable we’d laugh at it. In summation: why isn’t the “ho” slander comically improbable, in our minds, as applied to (young) black women?
My own concern is that anything like a “close reading” of the substantial subtexts of this “event” will be skirted in favour of the same old inch-deep PC tut-tut-tutting.
My point is that Imus’s bigotry draws power from the belief system he shares with all of us.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I think the fact that we are now being told in schools and the media that almost everyone is a member of some victimized group has made fake outrage a popular response to any comment that remotely seems to be insensitive.
When I heard some of the Rutgers women complain about how Imuses comments had perminately scarred them, Two things came to mind. First I’m sure they were coached to say this and secondly if indeed women can be scarred by such comments,than I’m afraid women probably should not be allowed to be in positions that hold lot’s of power. Something I had never considered before.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Steven Augustine Says: My point is that Imus’s bigotry draws power from the belief system he shares with all of us.
Bingo ! Imus’ power as proxy
The power dynamic of the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The Japanese have a saying: the nail that sticks up gets hammered
(Btw, I don’t listen to any of the talking heads collectively known as the freak show.)
April 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Good morning rc21
I think those girls had an obligation to go on TV and stand up for their right to be successful without fear of being victimized.
Were they scarred?
They are 19 -20 year-old kids – why wouldn’t they be scarred?
To deny that they could be scarred, is a misunderstanding of the magnitude of the power dynamic.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hi Lumiere, They have a right to say what ever they want. I’m a stickler for the firs amndt. It is just my opinion, that these women were coached. I work with college kids and I work with athletes. They are usually much tougher mentaly than the general population.
Anyways I don’t know for a fact, but if I had to bet money I know which side I would go with. As I said victimization has become a cottage industry.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
(from Steve Augustine) ..”My point is that Imus’s bigotry draws power from the belief system he shares with all of us..”-
By your lights, then, we are a nation of crypto-racists… permeating most of our “socio-economic food chain”… a point well-taken.
(from rc21) ..”Anyways I don’t know for a fact, but if I had to bet money I know which side I would go with. As I said victimization has become a cottage industry..”-
Nice… times are better for lawyers, I guess. When I was a year and a half old, my mom & I “witnessed” (no- I don’t remember it at all) a murder of a black man in Tampa, Florida, by a white business owner there… who was found guilty, and subsequently fined $25. I doubt if the victim’s family could have hired a lawyer. Why take a chance on getting shot, yourself, for that kind of money? ^..^
April 17th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Thanks, Herbert Brown. Here’s a wonderful tidbit for everyone: a link to the myspace page for Zion I and the Grouch. The song “Make You Fly” is about the feminine divine. I don’t mean that metaphorically. They actually use the words “divine feminine.”
Lumiere, it’s okay if you don’t want to be nuanced about hip hop. I understand, nuance can be challenging for some people.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=91886649
Or just try: http://www.myspace.com/zioniandthegrouch
Rc21 writes:
When I heard some of the Rutgers women complain about how Imuses comments had perminately scarred them, Two things came to mind. First I’m sure they were coached to say this and secondly if indeed women can be scarred by such comments,than I’m afraid women probably should not be allowed to be in positions that hold lot’s of power. Something I had never considered before.
It strikes me as strange that now that the Rutgers womens basketball team is now a stand-in for all womankind. Though I share some interests with those young women, I don’t think it’s just that I should be barred from taking a position of power, because (in one man’s opinion) they aren’t tough enough to handle positions that hold lots of power. This is a sexist equation.
Furthermore, your callousness seems over the top. Is this your version of tough love? Why do you judge these people for feeling hurt? For talking about feeling hurt? I expect they would be coached–I would hope their coaches, teachers, and parents wouldn’t send them out to talk to the national media without giving them some pointers first. What’s really bothering you about this, Rc21?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Geez… I didn’t even mention the Roots.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:23 am
valkyrie, There are several things that bother me about this whole situation. I posted some of my thoughts earlier. With respect to the women issue this is my problem. There was nothing and I mean nothing heard from the coach or players from Rutgers for several days. It was not until this became a big media issue that all of the sudden these incredibly strong successfull women came out and began speaking about how damaged and hurt they were.
I’m glad you agree that you think they were coached in their speeches.Why this does not concern you is your problem not mine, I would expect when people talk about being permently scarred they would speak from the heart and be honest,not regurgitate the thoughts that some other entity has fed them. I guess we just differ on our standards of ethical behaviour.
As to women being allowed to have positions of power. I was being somewhat sarcastic. I work for a woman and she is one of the best leaders I have worked for. I work with over 40 young women every year. and I would never ever teach them to let some callous remarks by a shock jock have any influence on how they act or think.
Yes I teach my kids that there are all types of people out there and they have all types of opinions on every subject you can imagine. Don’t expect everyone to like you or agree with everything you do or say. This is America land of the free(Remember that quote) So don’t act like a whiney little baby when someone offers an opinion that you don’t like. Grow up act like an adult and stop complaining about peoples words. They are words and words only.
I would prefer to have leaders that understand this. I would detest a leader man or woman that looks for any chance to play the victimization card. It shows me they are either oppertunists or so fragile mentally that they should not have a leadership role.
These are just a few of my problems with the imus fiasco.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Rc21, you find so many reasons to doubt the sincerity of the students. None of them really make sense. I think you’re just uncomfortable hearing these young women speak their mind. I think you’re uncomfortable seeing the normal power roles reversed, seeing an old white man take the fall instead of the media dismissing the young black women as hysterical or race-baiting.
I know you’re going to be upset about this, but I wouldn’t call you out in such a way if I didn’t really believe it. Let me break it down for you.
There was nothing and I mean nothing heard from the coach or players from Rutgers for several days. It was not until this became a big media issue that all of the sudden these incredibly strong successfull women came out and began speaking about how damaged and hurt they were.
So… since they took a few days to think about what to do, about whether to respond publicly, and how, they are less believable? Only if you have suspicions about their motives anyway.
I’m glad you agree that you think they were coached in their speeches.Why this does not concern you is your problem not mine, I would expect when people talk about being permently scarred they would speak from the heart and be honest,not regurgitate the thoughts that some other entity has fed them. I guess we just differ on our standards of ethical behaviour.
Okay, when I speak of “coaching,” I mean folks giving the young women advice on how to express THEIR feelings and THEIR concerns to the national media. If I were about to talk to a few dozen reporters and a bunch of TV cameras, I would sure as hell want somebody giving me tips on how best to get MY point across.
But to you, “coaching” means they’re “regurgitating the thoughts of some other entity.” Care to name this entity?
As to women being allowed to have positions of power. I was being somewhat sarcastic. I work for a woman and she is one of the best leaders I have worked for.
I’m not convinced I should take comfort in the fact that you were being somewhat sarcastic. Are women only somewhat unfit for positions of power then? Your mention of your boss is somewhat akin to the proverbial remark that begins, “I have plenty of black friends, but…” You have cognitive dissonance happening here. Who was debating whether women should hold positions of power? It’s not an issue. Or it wasn’t until you brought it up. First of all, I don’t agree that the Rutgers women were revealing weakness. Second of all, even if they were, it’s not BECAUSE they’re women–it’s because they are who they are.
I work with over 40 young women every year. and I would never ever teach them to let some callous remarks by a shock jock have any influence on how they act or think.
Yes I teach my kids that there are all types of people out there and they have all types of opinions on every subject you can imagine. Don’t expect everyone to like you or agree with everything you do or say. This is America land of the free(Remember that quote) So don’t act like a whiney little baby when someone offers an opinion that you don’t like. Grow up act like an adult and stop complaining about peoples words. They are words and words only.
And now, you’re attacking these other young women–perfect strangers to you–because they’re not acting in ways you approve of. You’ve defined what it means to be strong, and you’ve moved the Rutgers women out of that category. You’re calling them names, even–whiny little babies. In effect, you’re encouraging them to just take the abuse. Way to go, teach.
I would prefer to have leaders that understand this. I would detest a leader man or woman that looks for any chance to play the victimization card. It shows me they are either oppertunists or so fragile mentally that they should not have a leadership role.
Well, in that case, I suggest that when Essence Carson runs for office, you shouldn’t vote for her. But don’t extrapolate from her to every other woman. That is the very definition of sexism. It’s telling to me that the one possibility which would portray the team in a more flattering light–the scenario in which they are bravely standing up for their dignity and respect, despite the opprobrium they may face–is the one possibility you dismiss out of hand. Why is that? You just don’t believe that language can be that powerful? Language has power. It defines our reality. If it didn’t, politicians wouldn’t have talking points.
Tell me, what good does it do when respectable people shut their traps when they are insulted by a stranger on the radio, on the TV, to fifty million listeners? Who does it benefit for them to put their chin up, be stoic, just keep going, rise above it all? It benefits Imus, his unconscious demons, and racism in general. If I hear someone crack a “nigger” joke, I don’t just stand by. I speak up. It’s not easy. People make me out to be a spoilsport, with no sense of humor. That is the perennial stereotype of a feminist, after all: no sense of humor. Can’t take a joke. But it’s worth it to me, because this humor (like your quasi-sarcasm) isn’t funny. And I get to hear less of it, in the end. People understand that there’s at least one person they know who won’t tolerate bullshit.
If the Rutgers women had followed your advice, Don Imus would still have no inkling of what it means to be held personally responsible for his words. And the rest of us would be robbed of the opportunity to witness the poise and dignity of these young women.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Nice speech. Yes you are pretty much what I see wrong with many but not all of todays young people. You and others like you look for sexism,racism any ism you can find,or invent. Anything that will show your moral superiority,at the expense of others.
First put your “I’m uncomfortable with seeing normal power roles reversed crap away” In the first place I don’t see males being in power as neccessarilly normal.
I brought up my boss being a woman simply to point out that I have and will continue to work with women and enjoy it. Wheather your convinced or not I really don’t care.
If you think I’m going to surrender to your trying to turn me into a sexist mean spirited male,it aint going to happen. Go play that game with someone else. If you want to discuss the issue without trying to demonize me than we can continue.
As to the coaching of the Rutgers women I stick by my point. These women just played for the national championship, they have been on national tv many times. They have played in front of crowds numbering over 15 tousand people. They have given numerous interviews to various media types. If they were really emotionally scarred and just had to speak out I don’t think they would need advice as to how to act in front of a camera. Be that as it is, we have differing opinions on this issue, and we will probably never know the truth.
As to the Rutgers women: You use the word attack. Where did I say I was attacking. Once again you look to try and put me on the defensive by saying I’m attacking Its a game liberals play, don’t debate issues just demonize your opponent. The word I would use is criticize. There is a difference, as subtle as it may be. I stand by my criticisms. I believe a stronger person would not let Imuses words damage them especially when they understood that Imus is a shock jock who does this type of stuff on a routine basis. He apoligized and most of the nation knows he meant no personal offense. People have to understand the context of Imuses words.
Reread my post did I specifically call the Rutgers women whiney little babies? No I did not ,but yes I think that if you let someone who makes an insensitive joke about you cause you to become scarred for life it sure is indicative to me of a person who is unable to take any type of criticism or negativity in their life.Certainly not someone I would want as a leader. As a matter of fact I would not even want to be associated with a person who is unable to deal with criticism.
I don’t even understand your next point. Where do I extrapolate my comments about The Rutgers women into other women. I already explained to you my comment about women who can’t deal with being offended as not being suited for positions of power as being sarcastic. Oh I get it by ignoring what I said you get to throw the sexism comment in there. Nice try. I wish you would really try reading what I posted instead of just looking for opportunities to toss out slogans that will make me feel guilty. I have no guilt.
Yes as you say language is powerfull. Just as powerfull is how you respond.
You ask what good does it do when respectable people shut their traps when they are insulted by a stranger on a radio show? Who does it benefit for them to put their chin up be stoic,rise above it all.
I don’t know ,but it worked pretty damned well for Ghandi and King and they were dealing with issues that were just a bit more serious than being called a nappy headed ho.
Finally your last point; I’m not sure what the stereotype of a femminist is. I did not know all feminists acted the same way. I will have to agree that you certainly sound like a person lacking in humor or the ability to tolerate any one who has an opinion that does not coincide with your own You must live in a very sheltered and closed world.
Myself I love people who disagree with me and offer opinions up that I find the opposite of my own. It makes life much more interesting and enjoyable.
I feel sorry for you. You seem incapable of enjoying the company and conversation of people who may offer up something that may contrast with your coception of how the world should behave.
When you say you won’t tolerate bull shit,what I see is a idealouge with a hermetically sealed world view who says agree with me or get lost.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
One more thing . It may suprise you but I prefer the company of a strong opininonated woman much more so than a woman who thinks it is her role to be subserviant. I value independence and strength. I abhor people who look for reasons to become victims.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I think we have an excellent opportunity for empirical study on this issue.
The Question: “How does it feel to be personally insulted on a radio show by a total stranger?”
Our Test Subjects: Valkyrie607 and rc21
Method: “So how does it feel, guys?”
Hypothesis: “Well, it pretty much sucks. I guess words do have some power after all. But is it really worth it?”
Results: Valkyrie607: ” ______________”, rc21: “_______________”.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
** Researcher’s Comments on this Study **
If the participants haven’t seen the South Park about Micheal Richards and “That Nigger Guy”, I recommend it highly.
There is a very insightful point made at the end of the episode, which, while not directly relevant to our study, helps to shed light on the general context of said study.
– Stan to ‘Token Black Kid’: “Now I get it. Now I get why I can’t say Nigger!”
– Token to Stan: “Why is that?”
– Stan to Token: “It’s because I don’t get it! I’ll never get it. Because I’m not black! I get it: I don’t get it!”
April 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Okay. Well. I was wrong. That’s cool. I figured you’d say as much. I can see how I opened myself up to being seen as humorless. That’s all right too. Actually I think I’m wicked funny. I’m also super geeky, so it’s a toss-up as to which side wins out. If you like strong opinionated women then we should get along just fine. I don’t think you’re mean-spirited at all. I think it’s debatable whether you’re sexist. That’s why I’m bringing it up.
And I don’t live a sheltered or closed life, so you don’t have to feel sorry for me.
I’m most intrigued by this: “I don’t see males being in power as neccessarilly normal.”
What do you mean by this?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Good post Bobo, I like it. As one of the few conservitives who regularly posts on this forum I get slamed quite often. I may not like it but it’s a free country. We all have a right to our opinions. If my feelings really get hurt I guess I can pick up my ball and go home. Some probably have done this.
As to your second post. All I can say is this. If anyone thinks certain people should not be permited to say certain words because they may offend someone. Then they don’t get what it is to be an American.
It really is quite that simple.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Valkyrie607 Sorry to come down hard on you. I usually try and take these debates a little less personal. If you are a strong woman than I’m sure we would get along. We don’t have to agree on everything.
You asked what I mean by not neccessarilly seeing males in power as normal.
What I mean is this. I try and take each person on his merits be they positive or negetive. I don’t think power and leadership are exclusive to the male. nor should they be. despite my ill faited attempt at sarcasm that you found humourlous. Women can pretty much do anything a man can do if they set their mind to it.
Maybe it is because I am surrounded by women who are goal oriented and strong. I see leadership qualities in many of these people.
Sometimes I think women can be their own worst enemies. This is what I mean by people playing the victim card. It may buy short term gain but in the long run I don’t see it as a positive. Look at black America. The culture of victimization they have emersed themselves in is killing them both literaly and figureatively
This is a fundemental disagreement between liberals and conservitives.No need to go into it now.
In closing you may think I’m sexist. I just think I see feminism in a different light than you do. I think in reality I may be the complete opposite of a sexist. It is really to broad a subject to go into on a message board.
My spelling in this post is bad I know but I’m in a hurry, I must run. Once again sorry for the trouble.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Rc21 sez: Women can pretty much do anything a man can do if they set their mind to it.
Yes, but… can men do pretty much anything a woman can do? If they put their minds to it? Hmm…
A little riff on language:
When you say “can” do you mean in the sense “to be capable of” or “to be allowed to?”
Given what you’ve said so far, I suspect in your case it’s the former. But that ambiguity still exists. And given the history of women’s struggle to move beyond what they’re allowed to do, onto doing what they are capable of doing, sensitivity to the language is, I reckon, a smart thing.
Note, too that the standard is still a male standard. What women can do is being held up to what men can do. Not the other way around.
This doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, Rc21! No, no, not at all! We all have these subtle inequalities embedded in our language. It’s nothing to fuss over, but it is worth some thoughtful contemplation.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Valkyrie607, I’m back Ok I will try and answer your question.
First men are unable to have children ,so no men can not do everything women can do.
First one of the things that I think has us looking at things a bit differently is this. I don’t allow or disallow women to do anything.
As I said I think they are capable of pretty much anything men are capable of. It is up to the woman to pursue fields and areas of interests that some would say are domminated by men. I’m all for this and would like to see more of it.
I don’t believe in a male standard and a female standard. There should be one standard.
If you remember the women in the military thread. I supported women going into combat,but I do not support women having to meet a lesser standard in qualifying for this job. Why? because women can if pushed reach a level of strength and endurance that the men have to reach on their fitness test. So why tell a women she is naturallly weaker so we will dumb down the test for you in order to give you a passing grade.
Instead I believe this should be the proper way to approach the situation. Tell the women this. Biologically women tend to not have as much strength as men so what we are going to do is push you harder, make you lift more make you run more until you catch up, and when you do you will pass the test.
This can and has been done it just takes a little more work I have done this with women in athletics and have seen tremendous improvements.
So as I said if we don’t put limits and don’t make excuses we can acomplish goals. I know this probably may not jibe with your take on things.
I’m not a woman so I’m sure we may see things in a different light. But let me ask you this. If women have been oppressed all these years and held down and discriminated against. Than A. Who allowed it to happen?What role did women play in this and B. Even if this has happened what good does it do to dwell on past inequalities? Does demonizing men and patriarchy, really further the cause of women? Maybe, maybe not I really don’t have an answer.
My basic philosophy is this and it has evolved over many years( I used to be as far left as you could get) We are