again, attempting to erase three words will only cause three new words to take their place while keeping the same definition. attack the intent, not the language.

Simmons: “It is important to re-emphasise that our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship… Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African-Americans and other people of colour, African-American women and to all women in lyrics and images.”
well, too bad for them considering the major label system is failing because it cannot keep up with the consumers. Any of their future policies to deter hateful or careless lyrics won’t effect the rising numbers of independently distributed rappers. That said, there’s already a “conscious” hip hop movement so it seems annoying that Simmons (and the rest of the media) doesn’t point to any of them as a beacon for artists to follow. Perhaps they aren’t on his friends’ labels…

The Second Amendment, or loss thereof, is being used as a spector to frighten us away from discussing how to build a concensus toward social norms of civility. I’m not as concerned about what one has the legal right to do – I don’t want to put someone in jail for words – but whether we want, as a society, to push ourselves toward adopting norms that call for more civility. Yes, I can turn off the radio or not purchase offensive material. But as a member of a larger society, I will still be concerned with how the language and imagery used is forming the ideas and behaviors of my fellow citizens. Now, if I’m the only one that is concerned with the issue, then it’s just my concern. In our society of free speech, I can try to talk to as many people about it as I like and I may just bore people to death. If enough people are concerned with the issue, though, a critical mass may be formed that leads to adapting our norms. These adaptations can be forced upon the society as a whole in places where we all contribute – government and public air waves. This is not about restricting free speech. It’s about determining what our tax dollars support or don’t support. People are still free to speak whatever they wish, just not on my dime.

There are reasons for slander and liable laws. You can damage the life of another with words. Careers are ruined and people land in prison based on the words of others. We have long since recognized that the First Amendment needed some limits applied if we are to have a chance at civility.

On -isms: if you are the object of an -ism, it’s a relentlessy creepy thing that molds you. And it is not for those who are not subject to the -ism to proclaim whether or not it does or should. Humans are social creatures. We are designed to respond to social cues. Those who don’t are labeled with a condition called Asperger’s Syndrome or Narcissism. I would appreciate it if we would stop using the disingenuous argument that people who are strong enough just don’t respond to these things.

Responses to bias are insidious. It can take years of self-reflection to realize how much of your character has been shaped by your response to an -ism. How long will it take for women to realize that they capitulated to the masculine as superior in order to gain some rights for themselves? I was quite literally trained in my MBA program – designed by women for women at a women’s college – that in order to succeed you must study and adopt the ways of men. Not one mention of supporting the idea that the ways of women could be equally valuable and that we might want to seek ways of increasing the valuation of women’s ways.

I recommend reading Joan Walsh’s reflections on her experience as a female writer at Salon.com. She is both self-reflective and articulate about the impact that a bias has had on her. Something she touches on is that she and her female colleagues would refer to their need to ignore the attacks on them as “manning it up”. Also, in the comments, someone writes that women open themselves to attacks by writing like, um, women. If only they wrote like men did…… While I find this comment lacking in introspection, it also reflects a certain reality: while women now have legal rights, they are still up against a deeply imbedded cultural bias. One that they tend to adopt themselves as a matter of survival – and because they are social creature that respond and form their character based on social input. For me, the question is: 1) can we agree that it is uncivil to hold these biases?, and 2) if so, how would we work on it? What can actually affect change? 3) Can we even agree on what the definition of civiity is?

On race versus class:; this is a tough one. I tend to think that classism will outlast racism. The dominant race is different in different places around the globe. As we “globalize” the wealthy white man from the US is more likely to feel an affinity for the wealthy black man in Nigeria, than for the poor white man. It’s about power. That said, racism has something that makes it easier to apply: immediate visual cue. It’s a lazy form of prejudice. What just came into my mind as I was typing was this question: “Is racism more virulent amongst those less educated? Is it likey to be the last stronghold of racism because race is, for the most part, the easiest thing to suss out?”

Okay, these are my first random thoughts. Not thorough by any means, simple first response gut level comments. I’m sure any flaws in logic will be highlighted…..

Bobo: people do get their news from varied sources, purposefully or not. coworkers who read the NYT share news at the lunch table, sisters emailing youtube videos, and friends discussing the BBC coverage over the phone. you choose your media like you choose your friends. if you hang out with people who make sexist jokes, then Imus might be for you. If not, then you probably didn’t give him your advertising dollars’ worth in the first place.

Rahbuhbuh: I agree that it would be wonderful if everyone could get ten different perspectives on the news every day. Personally, since I live in an area with no TV reception or cable, I check websites for my news. At least 5 times a day I check (in this order) Google News, CNN, BBC, FOX, Al Jazeera. I find that it gives me an excellent grasp of what’s going on in the world.

However, for me to assume that everyone does/can/should do this is preposterous. If I only got my news from Democracy Now! I would probably be imbibing an equal amount of mis-truth as those who only get their news from FOX. Need an example: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. All it took was a little bit of slander, and despite the best efforts of all the news networks to correct the error, enough people didn’t get the proverbial memo that it was still able to influence the election. When people miss out on the controversy, they generally believe the first thing they hear. That’s what’s so dangerous about slander.

no. let the press do as they wish and set their own standards, even FOX and NBC with their arguably slanted or sensationalist coverage. If one network or news organization’s speech is too colorful (as my grandmother would say), then let the listener/viewer change the channel. I prefer the multi-pronged approach to news coverage, let people have the option to hear stories from 10 sources and discern who’s being objective. Private spun news is better than properly sanctioned State-run news.

First; Fox news I vaugely recall the story, Correct me if I am wrong but did not FOX come out with a correction, and apology. With the Rather gate it was quite different. They ran with a story that they knew in all probability was either false or had serious questions regarding it’s truth. Their own experts even expressed concerns.

Also Rather and the network only fessed up after overwhelming evidence was thrown in their face exposing the big lie.Even after this they somehow in a convoluted sense of reasoning stated that even though the facts were wrong the story still had merit. This is why Rather came under such fire.It was not the original lie it was the cover up and denial that caused the problem. A simple admission and apology would have ended it.

Second: Ailes has a right to say what ever he likes in his private life. This is a non issue and should have no bearing on your argument, unless you are in favor of repealing the second amndt. I’m not sure why you brought up his private joke .

Third;Although I agree with you on your concern that the press seems to get away with reporting news that is false and inaccurate. (try being a conservative and listening to all the MSM outlets that constantly lie about conservatives).
We have to put free speech right at the fore front. If not, under your wishes 90% of all news outlets would be forced to shut down.

Would your rules also apply to political parties that lie? A few years ago the Dems ran adds in black communities stateing if republicans are elected black churches will be burned.

fourth: The reason Britain has different laws than the USA is because they do not have the same freedom of speech protections as we in the US have. If you are willing to give up your freedom of speech because you don’t like something FOX news said than I would suggest that you are taking your first amndt rights way to lightly.

I’m offended by the lies and distortions I hear and read from the likes of the NY Times,Boston Globe,PBS,NPR,CNN, etc. The proper recourse is exposing lies and distortion, not censorship.

One thought which has been kicking around in my head for a while: is there / should there be a difference between freedom of speech for private individuals and freedom of speech for members of the press?

I know that the word ‘censorship’ will immediately pop-up in any counter-argument on this point, but I would suggest reconsidering any absolute stance against censorship.

Aside from Imus, let me present another example of racial or ethnic defamation which went out on the airwaves recently. Fox News, in a ’special investigation’, reported (quite falsely) that Barack Obama had attended a Wahabist / Jihadi school when he was a child in Indonesia. Shortly after that, the president of Fox News made a joke which compared “Obama” to “Osama”.

Now we can spend an entire day talking about how Fox News is full of proverbial excrement, but the fact remains that many Americans get their news from this organization. Dan Rather was crucified for his journalistic mistake. Yet the story directed against Barack Obama was not met with nearly as much scorn.

The president of Fox News can say whatever he pleases, even in public. He is, after all, a citizen. However, when a false and racially charged story is put out over the airwaves, it concerns us all. I consider this story racist because it made the assumption that all Muslims are Jihadis. (Maybe racist isn’t the proper term, maybe sectarian.)

In Britain, where slander and libel laws are much stricter than the US, Fox News would probably have been shut down a long time ago under a swarm of lawsuits. The question remains, to what extent should we govern the airwaves which supposedly belong to us? The FCC is supposed to play this role, but they spend their time worried about titties and Howard Stern. Should we, as the public, demand that ‘News’ organizations be held to a higher standard of free speech? Don’t we have a responsibility to ensure that blatant lies, racist defamations, and politically motivated slander don’t go out over our airwaves? If Fox News reported that Muslims all over the US were about to rise up and start killing infidels, would that cross the ’shouting fire’ line? Where is that line, and is it more strict for broadcasters?

Perhaps this will buck some new thoughts into the discussion.

I finally found the “niggardly” instance from DC politics back in 1999: David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate, said he used the word “niggardly” in a Jan. 15 conversation about funding with two employees. “I used the word ‘niggardly’ in reference to my administration of a fund,” Howard said in a written statement yesterday. “Although the word, which is defined as miserly, does not have any racial connotations, I realize that staff members present were offended by the word.
-he eventually resigned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm

Race in language, even misquoted, is still too charged. George Carlin’s speech about words cannot be “bad,” seemed applicable to too-PC 1999. Words are only bad when used in purpose to hurtful statements. His argument sounds like gun advocates’ “guns don’t kill people…” mantra. It comes back around to wrongfully demonizing specific words, like RC21 mentioned previously.

—-

Al Sharpton was interviewed on Bill Maher’s show, a thankfully uncensored open venue. Nothing which hasn’t been said here was stated, but the discussion about free speech to appeal to Imus’s sponsors to stop funding racist commentary is worth listening to if people want to grab the podcast.

Dig it
Every day of my life I bear witness to the power of words
And what they do to the many and the few
I’m speaking thoughts with the mind and the mouth open
Keeping my people on point, plus I’m hopin
That my word sound power will devour the fools
For they know not the hour the Most High rules
I got an aura created by words of praise
Original G, watch I as I amaze
All my pupils, when I speak I have scruples
Treat my mind like a holy tabernacle
No one can attack and steal my thoughts
Therefore the words I say are the lessons I brought
Into the cipher, words now possess value
If you wanna know the real then let me tell you
You’re responsible for what you say
Because the words you speak can truly cause dismay

So what you say

–Pete Rock

more underground hip hop to keep your mind blunted on reality

peace

So I saw this article on salon and it occurred to me that that thing with Alec Baldwin’s voice mail message to his daughter is another sign of the shifting of language in our culture. Something that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow 15 years ago is released to the public and becomes the source of public shame and controversy. It seems to me like big changes are happening.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/04/25/hotheads/index.html

If you’re curious about the original message Baldwin left, just go to Youtube and search for “Alec Baldwin.”

And even if I was as ignorant as you assumed, I still would have a pretty darn good point about Obama not sounding black, or, if you prefer the PC phraseology, not sounding like a descendant of West African slaves.

It’s final paper time, smell ya later!

Valkyrie607 I asked where you were from because you seemed to be unaware of the many different forms of black speech. I guess being from Vermont your not exposed to the differences in black accents. No problem. I do accept your premise that there is a stereotypical american black accent. Just remember that there is a growing black population that does not adhere to the confines of this dialect, so that is why I was so suprised that you used the term black accent. Maybe we both let our selves get hung up on small details.

BOBO have you ever talked to an american black from Boston? They have a different accent than blacks from other parts of the country. American blacks from the farming country of Alabama have a much different accent than blacks from Philly. You see I spent many years living and working with blacks from all parts of the country and when I first joined the service I to thought all blacks pretty much sounded the same. It was not until I began living with them that I noticed the differences. Is there a stereotypical Black American accent? I suppose so. Is there one black accent reserved for decendents of slaves. The answer is no, sorry to dissapoint you BOBO .

Take the time to really know some black people and you will not be so quick to paint with such a broad brush.

BOBO your points on southern whites are well taken. Of course once again being in the service tought me that southern whites with accents were just as intelligent as Northen and mid western whites. Unfortunately we still see eliteist snobs from the north who will criticize the white southern accent.

Myself I really try not to make negative assumptions about people with different accents. Be they southern white,American black , Asian, I don’t care. The service tought me this. It was a lesson you cant learn from college books or by taking seminars in race relations.I can only speak for myself. If it is so very important to others than so be it.

Valkyrie607 I may be interested in the discussion on race relations, I’m just not all that interested in the relevance of different accents that people have in regards to race relations.

Dialects and accents are interesting topics to discuss but they seem at this point to take the discussion in a different direction,but you are right I guess it does fit the topic. It just seems that things get side tracked at times. My apologies.

Maybe if we all tried to stop stereotyping all races and started looking at people as individuals we could make more progress. I can see from this discussion that this probably is not going to happen very soon.

By the way valkyrie 607. Do you think the fact that Obama speaks with a midwestern accent might have something to do with the fact that his mother is white and from the midwest and his father who I believe is from Africa and does not have a black american accent . Also throw in the fact that Obama spent a fair amount of time outside of the US. I think if you add these things all up it is not suprising at all that Obama speaks as he does. This question is not meant as sarcastic or in a way to antagonize. I just think if you add it all up it makes sense for him to have a nondiscript accent. Your thoughts?

In closing sorry to get a bee under my bonnet. When people have such different views on subjects I guess it is bound to happen. Maybe if you lived in the wonderfully diverse city of Lowell you would see what I meant by so many different types of people and accents. I have relatives in Vermont I find the state very beautifull but almost totally lacking in racial diversity. This is good for those who like to stay seperated. Many people from Mass, NY, and Conn have fled to the north for just that reason.

I’m travelling to one of the grat nothern cities this weekend. Unfortunately their murder rate has risen so fast it is quickly becoming a place people are looking to avoid. Good by.

It’s terribly unlikely, though. Compton is mostly black folks. And why is that? The answer has a lot to do with redlining! See? See? It all relates!

It’s terribly unlikely, though. Compton is mostly black folks. And why is that? The answer has a lot to do with redlining! See? See? It all relates!

It’s terribly unlikely, though. Compton is mostly black folks. And why is that? The answer has a lot to do with redlining! See? See? It all relates!

“I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying it is.”

I live in Vermont, the second whitest state in the nation. (After Wyoming.) Burlington has a large number of African refugees, though, and probably 80% of the state’s African-American population. I’m quite curious why you want to know.

Of course the accent thing is a stereotype.

God, I so want to make fun of you right now… please forgive my sarcasm above, it’s just that… you’re being so obtuse.

“Blacks do not all sound the same.” No! You’re kidding.

You’re really sticking your head in the sand if you’re trying maintain that there really isn’t a black American accent. There is. Some folks, both white and black, hear that accent and think, oh, that person must be uneducated, lazy, whatever. Now, it is possible to acknowledge the reality that there are certain accents that, when we pick up the phone and listen, we say, “Ah, that person must be black,” or, “that person is probably white,” AND simultaneously refuse to buy into the useless stereotypes about those accents. Barack doesn’t have a STEREOTYPICALLY black accent. He has a midwestern accent. Obviously you can be any color and speak with a midwestern accent, but the fact remains that midwesterners are white, generally, and the midwestern accent is a STEREOTYPICALLY white accent.

If Barack sounded like, say, Biggie Smalls, or Chuck D., well, my guess is that he wouldn’t have gotten elected Senator in the first place. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying it

I’m sort of baffled why you’re interested in this discussion. When I said, some of your words are sexist, you said, “I believe that actions speak louder than words.” Fair enough. I agree. Why are you wasting time bandying words about on the internet then? Then you ask, “Who gives a shit what accent someone has, anyway?” Sounds like a rhetorical question but I’ll answer it anyway. Who cares is folks like me who are interested in discussing the intersection of race, power, and language, right here on this thread which is supposed to be about just that.

“Words, words, words, words, words.”

–Shakespeare

Peace out, yo.

Really? Because in my experience a lot of people give a lot of their proverbial excrement about accents. I grew up in a very redneck rural area. People who want jobs, or opportunities in general, outside of manual labor, are usually forced to change their native accent. When was the last time you met an accountant or a lawyer who spoke ‘like a hick’? I know quite a few people who have spent a lot of time and effort getting rid of their redneck accents. Why? Because the majority of Americans hear that accent and immediately think that the person is a racist, inbred, uneducated, mentally inferior piece of white-trash.

“We have Jamaican americans,Haitian americans, Kenyan americans Somalian americans etc. I could go on.” A distinction should be made here between African Americans in general and African Americans who are the descendants of US American Slaves. I think most Americans can identify members of the second group by their accents. And most of the racist stereotypes in our country are directed at the second group.

This being the “race-class-language” thread, it’s my humble opinion that accents fit rather nicely into the subject matter.

Basically banks and lenders thought these were high risk areas and felt it better to lend to more affluent parts of society. The influence this had was to make it harder for minorities and poor whites to get loans. This practice was deemed ilegal in 1968. It has been awhile since I did alot of reading on this subject I hope this response passes muster with you.

Now on to Barack I’m afraid Im going to disagree with you. Barack is half white and half black he sounds to me like he has no accent, but remember I am from mass, and I think anyone who speaks differently than bostonians has no accent. Either way don’t you think it is a bit presumptuious to say Barack doesn’t sound black. My work mate is black and his accent is very close to what I would call a non accent or you would call a midwestern accent. Should I tell him he does not sound black. Talk about stereotyping. and you accused me of saying things that sound racist.

Blacks do not all sound the same. May I ask where you live? Because down in my neck of the woods we have black people who sound quite different from each other . We have Jamaican americans,Haitian americans, Kenyan americans Somalian americans etc. I could go on. They all have very seperate and distinct accents. So please explain to me so I can tell these people what a black accent is. I’m going to have to get them all on the same page. I wonder if they will be disapointed when I tell them they have been speaking with the wrong accent all of these years?

To be honest with you who gives a s—t what kind of an accent someone has.

“For the horrors of the American Negro’s life there has been almost no language. The privacy of his experience, which is only beginning to be recognized in language, and which is denied or ignored in official and popular speech–hence the Negro idiom–lends credibility to any system that tries to clarify it. And, in fact, the truth about the black man, as a historical entity and as a human being, has been hidden from him, deliberately and cruelly; the power of the white world is threatened whenever a black man refuses to accept the white world’s definitions.”

This is where you’re wrong, my friend. Barack Obama has a distinctly midwestern, white accent. This is exactly what I was talking about. He doesn’t sound black, and this makes him a more viable candidate.

I look at it this way: Our country was founded on certain principles. Our creator(whom ever that may be) endowed all of us with certain rights and freedoms. We know that certain groups were not allowed to have the full rights as others but the mechinisms of the constitution were put in place so that as society and culture evolved eventually all people were allowed to feel the full benifit of this great document and this great nation. It took awhile, and in some cases there is still some work to be done but tremendous progress has been made.

I believe our society is now at the point where anyone can fit in.
People generally have the same wants and needs regardless of race or sex. So even though the white male may have founded and framed our society he did so in a way that gave humans, not white males the best chance of freedom and success.

Maybe I’m just an optimist. I think through hard work and personal responsibilty anything is possible in this great nation. I have seen it happen so often, but remember we may all be created equal but we are not all guaranteed of an equal outcome when taking lifes journey.