I like to believe that Don Imus didn't wake up that day and think, "Hmm! Let me insult some people!" I mean, in this day and age, it should be pretty damn obvious that what he said was completely inappropriate and was only going to get him into trouble. Surely he knew this.
Mel Gibson had the tenuous excuse that he was drunk. What's Imus'?
Regardless, these things that people are saying in unguarded moments...is this really how they feel? If so, why? And what can be done?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You're certainly a naive little thing, aren't you? Ever hear of something called "human nature?" Good grief, are you blind to the fact that people mistreat each other at least as often as they treat each other well?
And you, are you so perfect?
I just read your cancer post, so I will now sheepishly cut you some slack.
LOL! Well, I recovered from cancer many years ago, so please don't give me any special treatment due to that. Surviving cancer doesn't make me more intelligent or knowledgeable.
But yeah, I'm pretty idealistic. I think that at their core, human beings want to be happy, and I think some people choose the wrong way to become so, thinking it's the right way. It brings us joy to bring joy to others, but so many of us abandon that path, for whatever reason.
My main concern in this post was the idea that people harbor such unfounded hatred in their hearts.
Do Imus is on my Anna Nicole list, btw. However, I don't think he is at heart a racist. He was definitely stupid. I didn't even know nappy-headed was a racial slur though, so I'm officially the naive one in this converstaion. And as far as hos? Everyone says that. It's nothing for a shock jock. So I think the comment is way more tolerable that anything I've heard Howard Stern say. Perhaps I'm forgiving because I say dumb things all the time. But I know I'm a racist. Hear me out though. I don't want to be, and try not to be. But everyone I hang out with is white. I tense up when I meet a black person walking downtown at night, but pass a white person with a polite wave. However I don't think the black people I work with do a poorer job than the white folks. I wouldn't base important decision on that. There's a great song in the musical "Avenue Q," which is basically adult sesame street where you can see the puppeteers. It's called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." I think Al Sharpton prefers black people to white people, so he's racist. And if an Asian person doesn't trust me because I'm white, then that's racist, too. We all like to pretend that we don't see color... but we all do. And I think we'd all be happier if we'd recognize it in ourselves, then perhaps we can work to overcome it. Is that totally stupid?
Well, here's the full exchange:
-----
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
-----
So he's equating "nappy-headed" with "hardcore", which I would say is racist. Just because you have dreads or whatever doesn't mean you're out packin' in the street. And not all the Rutgers girls even have that kind of hairstyle.
The comments have also been called sexist, because he implies that the Rutgers girls are ugly while the Tennessee girls are not. I suppose you can't really say that this is part of the racism because there aren't that many more white people on the Tennessee team than on the Rutgers team. But it's definitely sexist, because what in the world do looks have to do with the ability to play basketball?
And of course it's offensive to call someone a "ho". :P I don't listen to shock jocks, though, so maybe I'm not desensitized enough.
As far as everyone being a little bit racist, yes, I agree with that. We're indoctrinated into it despite our best efforts and the best efforts of those who raised us. It's a little hard to erase centuries of history, habits, ways of life. And it's self-perpetuating--if person A expects something, and person B expects person A to expect that something, then a third person who doesn't expect anything might still get treated like person A by person B ;P
I never really had friends outside my own race back home, except for people online, and even now that I'm here in Augusta, I don't feel quite like I can get "in". I always feel like I'm missing something. And that makes it harder for me to make friends (with a few notable exceptions).
The thing about how you treat strangers on the night streets, though? I treat everyone equally in that situation, because I'm a woman ;P
For better or for worse, people have some sort of reservations about people of a different race. It also has to do with how they present themselves too.
If I dressed like I was from the streets with my pants hanging off my arse and with a goatee down to my chest with no hair on my head, calling my significant other "old lady" etc., most people would look at me going down the street like I was gonna steal something, mug someone, and whatnot. But if I'm wearing a suit with neat hair and carrying a briefcase walking down the street, I'd most likely be mistaken for a businessman or lawyer or whatnot.
Basically, it goes back to the old saying of "the apparrel doth proclaimeth the man" (my Shakespeare English might be off, but you get the message) Whether its right or not to put stereotypes on people based on what they wear, I dunno, but its what we all do. Whether its right for someone's culture to call women by a derogatory name but not anyone else, I dunno.
All I know is, the way I treat people, regardless of race, is with respect as long as they're due respect by their deeds. If someone acts ignorant, I treat them as such. If someone acts like a jerk, I treat them as such. If someone is kind and considerate, I treat them as such. Pretty simple formula.
As for Shock Jocks, what i think is sad is that people spend their time listening to them, not so much that they say the things they do. They'll say anything for a blip on their ratings. Kinda like the whole "wardrobe malfunction" during teh Superbowl. The only way to stop those kind of people is to stop caring about them, and eventually those attention-addicted shock jocks get thrown out when they're not bringing people in. They thrive on drama, so why are we giving them the attention they need?
Just my two cents on the subject ^_^
This is a minefield of a conversation topic, but I've had a few beers so what the hey.
Even though I don't like what the guy said, I respect his right to say it. In this age of shrinking democracy we at least still have the right to say what we want so long as it doesn't physically endanger people.
So what do we do?
Make the guy a pariah? For saying something dumb on the radio?
He doesn't deserve that much attention, but he's getting it and even though he's gonna have to take his licks and do some apologizing, he's stands to become an even bigger name than he was before.
Heck, I'd never heard of him before last week.
He may be foolish for letting slip with racial slurs on the air, but in the end our society is doubly foolish for hyping his actions.
Jair, you are definitely right that how people dress affects the way people think about them. But I think it can be argued that certain clothing styles are--consciously or not--associated with certain ethnic groups. I think this sort of association is what makes what Imus said racist.
As far as not giving Imus any attention, well, I'm not linking to him, and I will continue to not listen to his show, so... :)
Miklos, that's why I don't approach the subject as "what should be done to Don Imus?" but rather as "what do his actions, and recent actions by others, say about us?"
I'm not interested in infringing on people's rights, or in giving an undeserving person extra attention, but I am interested in whether it's possible for us to see the prejudices we carry, and do something about them.
Sorry, but "nappy-headed ho's" is not racist. In fact, it's even somewhat accurate. There are at least 2 or 3 players and the coach who have weird hairdos. There is no relationship between "hardcore ho's" and "nappy-headed ho's." He was not equating the two terms. He was merely observing their odd hair styles.
People need to get a life. Particularly Al Sharpton. If you want to talk about nappy-headed ho's, that guy is the poster child.
Don Imus is not a racist. He's just an idiot. To quote Hanlon, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Anyone who has ever listened to Imus' show knows that everything he says and does is a direct result of gross dumbassity.
"Gross dumbassity". Nice.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the phrase "nappy-headed hos", in the context in which it was used.
However, I would like to note that I am a nappy-headed ho today. My hair is nasty!
Context? You're kidding, right? There was no context! Random on-air shit-shooting does not create context. It's called "banter."
If you really want to talk about context, he was referring to "tattoos," implying that he finds body art unappealing. Anyone who thinks that's racist is far too brainwashed to conceive a logical thought. Or has never been to a strip club, one of the two.
As someone who has been "up close and personal" with a female with dreads (and no, she wasn't black either...racist!), I can attest that it's not at all healthy for the hair in question and, because of the difficulty of care for such hair, can often result in excessive amounts of nappy.
That's not racism. That's simple science.
As for equating "nappy-headed" with "hardcore," I'm going to challenge you to find a grammatically correlative statement in what Imus said which indicates he was trying to restate what McGuirk said in a different way. You can't find one. In fact, Imus said, "I'm going to tell you that now," indicating clearly that he was making a statement to inform McGuirk of a point which had not already been made...and certainly not by McGuirk.
If one actually bothers to take a look at the Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team, one will discover that they, too, are predominantly black! (http://utladyvols.cstv.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/gallery_index.html) And Imus said they were cute!
So now it's racist to dislike a particular hair style simply because it has traditionally been worn more by members of a minority race? Ridiculous.
The vast majority of people who are getting all bent out of shape over this are people who don't even listen to Imus anyway. So who cares what the guy says? If you don't like listening to a moron, change the channel. But don't try to call him a racist, and don't try to curtail his freedom of speech.
You don't seem to be actually responding to me. It sounds to me like you need to post your own blog topic on your own blog.
I mean, it's fine to state your opinion here. But you've phrased it as though I've said things I haven't said.
For example, you wrote as though I had not actually looked at pictures of the Vols team, when I had. I looked at rosters of both teams. That's why I argued that there was also sexism in Imus' comment.
What I was trying to discuss here was not how we should censor radio personalities--that is not my opinion--but my perception of subconscious prejudice in our society.
As far as your argument that logically there is no racism here, I'd just like to point out that racism and perceived racism aren't logical. If logic ruled human interactions, we probably wouldn't have any wars!
I have never said that Imus should have been fired. I don't think he should have been. I am aware that he and other radio personalities make similar comments daily.
I was simply using a current example to broach a subject that is on my mind quite a bit.
I'm *trying* to respond to you. :)
Sexism, okay, maybe. As a guy, I don't find it sexist to comment on which women one does or does not find attractive. Maybe women do.
As for logic, I never attributed it to anything Imus said, nor would I ever do so. But we (the rest of us) should use logic to determine whether or not someone's cry of "racism!" is valid. And I have yet to see any evidence that it is.
I happen to dislike tattoos on women too, and I think the Vols ladies are better looking. I think the Rutgers women have some pretty nappy-looking hair. How is that racist or prejudiced in the slightest?
If my comments aren't prejudiced, then neither were his. If you think they are, I'd like to hear why. :)
If you're willing to allow that as a man, you might not understand what women could perceive as sexist, then are you also willing to allow that as a white person, you might not understand what a person of another ethnicity might perceive as racist?
My position is, if someone honestly feels that they have been prejudiced against, then there is something there worth exploring.
I am not a fan of people crying prejudice for no reason, but those girls honestly seemed upset.
As a female with a tattoo --no nappy hair, though, but I DID always want blue and black dreads, they didn't really mesh with my day job-- I'm not personally offended, but instead agree with KainX, I don't think any of it is racist, mearly expressing opinion and personal taste. Also, I don't think Imus should have been fired over it, I think that was pretty retarded (is THAT a racist or offensive description?!) on the network's part.
Besides, what about all these rap songs on the radio that say about the same thing? Does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson not attack THESE --what could be seen as slurs-- because they're sung --and that's open to opinion, too, I think-- by black men?! What gives some people free use of the "ho" card, and damns others to losing their jobs for saying it?
Apparently Imus has said similar, or worse things, about other people. Including other black females.
I don't think firing him was the right choice, especially given how forgiving we are to others who make those comments.
I'm not sure what sparked the furor over this particular event. I'm getting the feeling that it has something to do with the fact that they're athletes. They're not movie stars; their profession has nothing to do with how they look and everything to do with how they perform. And I think people are sensitive about female athletes because they don't get as much airtime as male athletes--because no one's interested. I think people feel guilty about that.
And so when someone attacks female athletes, it's already like kicking them when they're down. Add the race card and whammo!
I still believe that in the context of the conversation Imus was having, he was equating "nappy-headed" with "hardcore", or at least implying that the two things go together. And I can understand how that would hurt someone's feelings.
I recently read an article by Jill Geisler of the Poynter Institute. Here's part of it:
---
Don't you wonder how his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, whom Imus reportedly called a "pig" and a "skank" on his program, is feeling these days?
Maybe we've become inured to ugliness -- even lured to it.
Even the least-talented radio or TV host, opinion columnist or blogger can snipe. Snark, after all, is seen by some as "authentic voice." Just keeping things real. And the closer it edges to the truly unacceptable, the more attention -- and sometimes audience -- it draws. It's "ear porn" -- appealing to those who are attracted by the public degradation of others, the more cutting the better.
The ad hominem attack has become so much a part of our media culture that I suspect Imus was acting within the bounds of what he thought his audience wanted and his bosses valued.
---
This is the sort of point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. This sort of language is hurtful. I am not saying we need to censor it. But I do think that people, individually, should take some time to think about whether or not they are bringing a positive message into the world.
You can be funny without tearing someone else down. Why do we reward those who take the easy route?
And why do we take the easy route? Where does this ugliness come from?
I think these are questions that everyone should pose to themselves.
I don't think you necessarily "failed" to make your point, I think it's just such a volatile subject, that it can expand in so many different areas at once.
Another thing I think, is that it's not very high on society's list as a whole, to worry about hurting people's feelings. That makes it that much harder for those of us who naturally DO take other peoples' feelings into consideration.
...or at least make an honest EFFORT to do so.
OK, straight up now, have any of you Imus ctitics EVER listened to his radio program or watched him on T.V.? Given the format and the context of his show the comment about the Rutgers girls was not at all shocking or out of character. Stupid? Yeah, he admits that. He apologized to the world for it. Suspend him? If it really makes you feel better, fine. But, take him off the air for saying something I hear on Hip Hop radio everyday of the week and in the streets, in the schools, at the grocery store, well, it's a bit absurd in my opinion. I mean, isn't that the reason all televisions and radios come with a "dial" ? You see, I think Howard Stern is rude, crude and generally disgusting; I don't listen to his program. Gee, that was easy! Now, the many, many good things that Don Imus does "for society" will be lost as long as he is off the air. The Imus Ranch for kids with cancer (Multi-racial, multi-ethnic), his work with the SIDS Foundation, the new burn center in Texas, these will all suffer because they've lost a very influential and powerful voice on the airways. They say let the punishment fit the crime, and I agree. The real crime here is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have found another platform on which to display their indignation, blah, blah, blah. We've gotten way too sensitive America, get over it and move on!
Hey look, it's one of those people who troll for posts about their current pet peeve and then post without reading the other comments!
I have noticed a lot of people bringing up "hip hop" music in Imus' defense lately--and in defense of local radio personality Austin Rhodes, who mimicked Imus by using the phrase "nappy-headed ho" to describe the prostitute who accused those Duke lacrosse players of rape. It makes me wonder if there is some email with that argument circulating. (Or maybe some popular pundit said it on TV, and now everyone's parroting him/her.)
The subject was even apparently on Oprah the other day--I heard an excerpt on the Jerry Doyle show one night when Sean and I rode out to Checkers for a late dinner.
It seems like the Imus controversy has opened up the door for conversations about racism in other areas of our culture, which I think is great.
As a reminder, I don't buy the "look, other people are doing it, so obviously it's okay!" argument, but given the circumstances, I don't believe Imus should have been fired.
I also maintain that what he said was indicative of a deeply-rooted impression or feeling that needs to be addressed. I'm glad, at least, that this situation has brought it to the forefront.
I don't think crying racism and turning everything into a controversy is a way to solve this problem. I do think we should all take the time to ponder why and how this and other things like it happen in our society.
If you're willing to allow that as a man, you might not understand what women could perceive as sexist, then are you also willing to allow that as a white person, you might not understand what a person of another ethnicity might perceive as racist?
Nope. We cannot allow sole responsibility for defining a crime to fall to the victim. Otherwise, everything that annoys you, pisses you off, or injures your ego suddenly becomes criminal. Likewise, we must stop allowing the -ism card to be played every time Al Sharpton or Gertrude Stein gets their panties in a wad.
I am not a fan of people crying prejudice for no reason, but those girls honestly seemed upset.
Sure they're upset. Unkind things which were said about them on a relatively insignificant basis were then blasted all over every medium imaginable instead of ignored. What, you don't actually think those players listen to Imus, do you? :)
People say unkind things. Boo-freaking-hoo. Somebody said an unkind thing to you in this very thread! Did you go crazy screaming "Racism! Sexism! Lieukemism!" over it? No, you did not. You responded like an adult. Maybe one day the Sharptons of the world will learn that skill.
What gives some people free use of the "ho" card, and damns others to losing their jobs for saying it?
Skin color, apparently. Same logic that says a white guy shooting a black guy is a hate crime.
Apparently Imus has said similar, or worse things, about other people. Including other black females.
So what? He's made a career out of talking trash about everyone, regardless of race, creed, gender, or planet of origin. In fact, that's the whole damn point of his show. He's a shock jock.
This sort of language is hurtful. I am not saying we need to censor it. But I do think that people, individually, should take some time to think about whether or not they are bringing a positive message into the world.
My point is that whether or not one chooses to bring a positive message to the world is a personal choice. Imus made big money by bringing a *negative* message to the world. And now he's been fired for doing what he was hired to do in the first place.
Imus being an ass only has an effect on my life if I listen to his show, and I don't. I never even would've heard what he said had it not been for the Sharpton Regime, and I resent that. No one who has done so incredibly little for this country, other than to shame it, should have that much power.
I don't think Sharpton will ever achieve his (stated, if not actual) goals, because only the people who feel victimized agree with what he's saying. People on the other side view him at best as an embarrassment and at worst as a roadblock in the path of understanding.
The "protests" that go on today seem so weak and deflated compared to the ones in the 60s. People protesting Austin Rhodes actually brought chairs to sit on. Chairs! "I'm sitting down for my cause."
You're right, it's a personal choice whether to be ugly or beautiful. And it's been demonstrated again and again recently just how little is accomplished by creating an uproar over individual actions--that only creates martyrs.
If change is to occur, it has to start with the individual. If someone wants respect, they need to be the best person they can be, and they have to realize that even then they might not get what they want, because people are flawed and come with their own prepackaged notions.
But if enough people start thinking about this sort of thing, and engaging in meaningful discussions instead of hate-filled diatribes, and forming their own opinions instead of parroting what they heard their favorite pundit say on TV, I think we could actually start making some changes.
My message to the world is simply this: stop looking at the person you're angry with as though they are your enemy. Try to see why they feel the way they feel, and then, using that knowledge, try to express to them your own feelings.
Post a Comment