Imus Calls Rutgers Women's Basketball Team "Nappy Headed Hos"

[joyfulgirl]

deep

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Why 'nappy' is offensive

By Zine Magubane | Boston Globe April 12, 2007

When Don Imus called the Rutgers University basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed ho ' s" he brought to the fore the degree to which black women's hair has served as a visible marker of our political and social marginalization.

Nappy, a historically derogatory term used to describe hair that is short and tightly coiled, is a preeminent example of how social and cultural ideas are transmitted through bodies. Since African women first arrived on American shores, the bends and twists of our hair have became markers of our subhuman status and convenient rationales for denying us our rightful claims to citizenship.

Establishing the upper and lower limits of humanity was of particular interest to Enlightenment era thinkers, who struggled to balance the ideals of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Independence with the fact of slavery. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen did not discriminate on the basis of race or sex and had the potential to be applied universally. It was precisely because an appeal to natural rights could only be countered by proof of natural inequality that hair texture, one of the most obvious indicators of physical differences between the races, was seized upon. Nappy hair was demonstrable proof of the fact that neither human physiology nor human nature was uniform and, therefore, that social inequalities could be justified.

Saartjie Baartman, a South African "bushwoman," was exhibited like a circus freak in the Shows of London between 1810 and 1815. The leading French anatomist of the day, George Cuvier, speculated that Baartman might be the "missing link" between the human and animal worlds because of her "peculiar features" including her "enormous buttocks" and "short, curling hair."

In "Notes on the State of Virginia," Thomas Jefferson reflected on why it would be impossible to incorporate blacks into the body politic after emancipation. He concluded it was because of the differences "both physical and moral," chief among them the absence of long, flowing hair.

For a runaway slave, the kink in her hair could mean the difference between freedom in the North and enslavement or worse if she were to be caught and returned to her master. Miscegenation meant that some slaves had skin as light as whites and the rule of thumb was that hair was a more reliable indicator than skin of a person's racial heritage. Thus, runaway slaves often shaved their heads in order to get rid of any evidence of their ancestry and posters advertising for fugitive slaves often warned slave catchers to be on the lookout for runaways with shaved heads : "They might pass for white."

In the late 1960s, after the FBI declared Angela Davis one of the country's 10 most wanted criminals, thousands of other law-abiding, Afro-wearing African-American women became targets of state repression -- accosted, harassed, and arrested by police, the FBI, and immigration agents. The "wanted" posters that featured Davis, her huge Afro framing her face like a halo, appeared in post offices and government buildings all over America, not to mention on television and in Life magazine. Her "nappy hair" served not only to structure popular opinions about her as a dangerous criminal, but also made it possible to deny the rights of due process and habeas corpus to any young black woman, simply on the basis of her hairstyle.

For African-American women, the personal has always been political. What grows out of our head can mean the difference between being a citizen and being a subject; being enslaved or free; alive or dead. As Don Imus found out this week, 300 years of a tangled and painful racial history cannot be washed away with a simple apology.

Zine Magubane is an associate professor of sociology and African diaspora studies at Boston College.

 

[Irvine511]

If it's overestimating racist, sexist, homophobic etc. speech to argue that it can contribute to a discriminatory climate, then there wouldn't be much point in reacting to it at all. I don't think it's innately sanctimonious or infantilizing to count psychological harm among those contributions--I fully agree that can be overexploited, and I think it's fair to say that's happened here in the big picture, but I guess I do find it more understandable than you do for an emotionally charged response to be provoked by you're-not-worthy-of-being-here-'cause-you-can't-'pass' (categorically out of the question for the group involved) insinuations, however idle. It isn't uncommon for them to happen, and isn't uncommon for them to cause people to feel cowed and to back away from the environment they take place in, whether the specific slurs those insinuations were conveyed through seem 'true' or not. It can't always be framed as just taking the piss out of someone, and responding to it as if that were the case doesn't always work. It's more a question of repeated encounters with insinuations of that type over the course of a lifetime leading to an internalized anxiety about being worthy of belonging, and thus vulnerability to feeling 'exposed' by them, than a matter of the specific words used. Just a sad reality, not a question of playing some guilt-trip card. Is this as harmful or unjust as specific forms of structural discrimination being protected by law--no, obviously not.

if it were said by a politician, a college administrator, the coach of the men's team, the coach of the Tennessee women's team, an ESPN announcer -- then, i'd start to think that the response and circus was approprite to the remarks.

as it stands, given who Imus is and where he sits in the grand scheme of things and the context of the comment, i can't see any of this as remotely appropriate to what was said. and this is where my withering sarcasm comes in. we've completely inflated this situation into a caricature of itself, and it does make me worry about freedom of speech. it does.

and please tell me, where was the similar media frenzy when Eminem released "The Marshall Mathers EP." sure, he was protested by GLAAD, or whatever, but we didn't see nearly the same amount of reaction, and that album won a bunch of Grammys.

and Eminem is a genius, the album is brilliant, and i think he's far smarter -- and plays subtly with multiple, equally unreliable narrators -- than the homophobe that many on the gay left wanted him to be. i wouldn't have been protesting with GLAAD. i'm glad the discussion arose, and i'm glad attention was brought to this issue, as i'm glad that attention was brought to the Imus comments, but i'm talking mostly about what's appropriate to what has been said, and the total unwillingness for anyone to listen to what Imus has said about the comments -- he's apologized profusely -- and the disregard for his considerable achievements -- as a philanthropist and as a journalist -- as well as the context in which the comment was made.

as for Deep's point -- ho vs whore -- i do take the point, and it's a good one, but then i'd also ask, is there a difference betweeen a "nigga" and a ******"?

i think that's a similar distinction between ho and whore.

 

[u2fan628]

And which black rapper or comedian has a nationally televised or syndicated radio show, where they make similar remarks? Sharpton has spoken out against language used by rappers in the past - google for it.

Speaking out is not the same as trying to ruin a mans livelyhood.

 

[u2fan628]

White men are really having a hard time with this part of this incident.

yes,only white men.We are the only ones who believe Imus should have apologized to the girls on the team and only the girls on the team...I am only one white man and I only speak for myself!

 

[CTU2fan]

I see what you're getting at Irvine but I'm not sure if it's a good comparison. "Nigga" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation to it; there's no malice in "What up nigga?". Ho does. While ho doesn't specifically mean whore or prostitute, it's clearly a negative term for a female. I'd guess ho is more like bitch...

I suppose in a way it has been blown out of proportion. I mean, it's Imus...he's talk radio, and any non-Howard Stern talk radio is marginal at best. But the standard has been set - when a celebrity, no matter how marginal he may be (let's be honest, Kramer & Tim Hardaway are D-list at best) makes this type of remark, there's a media outcry. Then the guy apologizes, and most folks generally discount the apology "if you were sorry you wouldn't have said it in the first place" etc. Imus is no different than those who came before him. It's not the end of the world, but I don't think he deserves a pass either, no matter what he's done in the past.

And I thought some of the Rutgers women were kinda hot...nappy headed ho's my ass.

 

[ntalwar]

Speaking out is not the same as trying to ruin a mans livelyhood.

When Sharpton proposes bans on certain rappers, he is in fact doing just that. I don't think it matters if it's what someone does for a living.

 

[Irvine511]

Then the guy apologizes, and most folks generally discount the apology "if you were sorry you wouldn't have said it in the first place" etc.

and this is the thing i find genuinely concerning.

and i find this comment to be far different than Tim Hardaway's comments, and Michael Richard's, and Mel Gibson's.

this is all i'm really getting at. i've not once defended what Imus has said. i've not once said that it's not as offensive as it actually is. i fully understand what's going on here, and if we wanted, we could get into some really complex cultural analysis about the origins of these words and why the sprung to mind so easily when talking about a very tough group of female basketball players (has anyone stopped to consider that maybe Imus was commenting on just how tough these women actually were?)

i'm just concerned at the frenzied reaction and the full-throated bellows of condemnation that have been thrown at him, as if saying that we condemn these words somehow makes us, ourselves, less misogynist or racist.

 

[BVS]

Wow, what someone misses in just one evening...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

If he wanted to comment on how "tough" they are, assuming that means how athletically competent and mentally tough, tough as competitors-well there is no way as far as I'm concerned that calling them nappy headed hos or some of the other comments by his cohorts can be construed to mean that.

Something along the lines of "those young women started off poorly this season but wow they must be very competitive and worked very hard to get to where they are" would have worked.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

this whole thing really is freedom of speech at it's finest. the will of the people is speaking. they want to nail imus. so that's what will happen...msnbc went first, dumping the simulcast right before his radiothon for kids with cancer, a classy move by them... cbs will be next. i have no doubt he'll be fired. but that's how it goes... a group complains, the news media gets wind, the public gets in an outroar, sponsors start to bail... just a matter of time before the show is gone for good.

it's exactly what happened to laverne and shirley.

 

[Irvine511]

If he wanted to comment on how "tough" they are, assuming that means how athletically competent and mentally tough, tough as competitors-well there is no way as far as I'm concerned that calling them nappy headed hos or some of the other comments by his cohorts can be construed to mean that.

Something along the lines of "those young women started off poorly this season but wow they must be very competitive and worked very hard to get to where they are" would have worked.

but this was meant to be a comedic segment. the joke wasn't funny, but earnestness isn't funny either.

i hear stuff like this all the time from my mother who's a huge women's college basketball fan. UConn is her beloved team -- my parents have season tickets and they have to bring Kleenex when it's "Senior Night" because my mother cries when the senior girls introduce their parents -- but once in a while she'll say things like, "wow, would not want to come across her in a dark alley." it's a commentary on the toughness of the women and meant to be mildly humorous because, especially for a woman her age, a rough and tumble female athlete was not something she grew up with.

where Imus failed was invoking racist and misogynistic language to make what i think was essentially the same point. my mother would never in her life say "nappy-headed hos."

 

[Irvine511]

it's exactly what happened to laverne and shirley.

vo-dee-oh-do-do, indeed.

 

[BVS]

it's exactly what happened to laverne and shirley.

Use to love that show, what exactly happened?

 

[ntalwar]

There is no freedom of speech over the publicly regulated airwaves. If there was, the FCC would not exist and would not issue fines and licenses.

 

[BVS]

There is no freedom of speech over the publicly regulated airwaves. If there was, the FCC would not exist and would not issue fines and licenses.

I wouldn't say there is NO freedom of speech, it's just regulated.

 

[ntalwar]

I wouldn't say there is NO freedom of speech, it's just regulated.

True - basically I'm saying that the expectation of 100% free speech does not apply to the airwaves.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Use to love that show, what exactly happened?

http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/video/1003/1003_pull_the_episode.mov

 

[BVS]

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think Imus has been sincere in his apology, is humbled by the experience, and I’m more than ready to move on.

I don’t think anyone’s free speech has been impinged upon—people can make racist comments, those offended can respond, corporations can discipline/fire people they think are liabilities, and everyone is held accountable.

I don’t think this has been blown out of proportion because it has stirred more public discussion of racism, free speech, and where the lines are fuzzy. My hope would be that it shows that people should think before they mouth off some cheap mean-spirited comments for laughs and ratings. For me this is probably more of an issue of compassion than free speech. Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.

I also think this is different than Emimen's record. That was art, characters in stories, and not necessarily how Eminem himself feels but which reflects attitudes and issues in our society. I don't know the record well enough to analyze it specifically but in general, that's how I feel about art. Imus was speaking as himself and despite his philanthropical work, revealed that he has racist issues but I'm more than satisfied with his response.

 

[Justin24]

hello Justin,
my friend


It seems my silly post got your attention.

How upset would you be if I had said that a picture of (insert one of your family members here)
looked like a "fat ass whore".

I think you would have a right to be upset, and I would deserve to be punished for insulting a member of your family for no reason.

And if I had a history of doing this again and again I should lose my right to use this message board.


Of course I think you and all members of your family are very good people, and attractive, too.

I also think your photographs are great. I have told you this before.

I just thought you might understand better if I gave you an example that was closer to home.

I hope there are no hard feelings.

No hard feelings Brother Deep. Have a good day.

 

[BVS]

joyfulgirl

 

[Justin24]

Since we are on the topic of Racism again. I am helping my cousin with her Final Term paper for US history class. She chose to write on the Massacre at Wounded Knee. So as I was digging through the Internet. I found this article on Sitting bull. To think this kind of writing and behavior was tolerable back then is shocking.

"The Last Of Sitting Bull"
St. Louis Republic, St. Louis, Missouri
Wednesday, Dec. 17, 1890

The death of Sitting Bull removes one of the obstacles to civilization. He was a greasy savage, who rarely bathed and was liable at any time to become infected with vermin. During the whole of his life he entertained the remarkable delusion that he was a free-born American with some rights in the country of his ancestors. Under this delusion, when civilized immigrants pushed over the Black Hills country in search of gold he considered them trespassers on the lands of his people and tried to keep them out. He was engaged in this absurd and wicked attempt when General Custer surprised his camp in the interests of civilization. Unfortunately for civilization General Custer was mistaken in the number of the savages who had assembled to fight for the land, which they foolishly believed was their birthright, and "a massacre" ensued. That is, it was one of those rare occasions when savagery for the moment had the best of it in a pitched battle with civilization. It was, of course, only for the moment, and Sitting Bull and his followers, who might have been easily and legally hanged as murderers, were granted a temporary respite.

This graciousness of the Great Father they have constantly abused by obstructing civilization in every possible way, especially in the worst way possible by trying to keep their land in a state of barbarism, and by insisting on their own understanding of treaties, regardless of necessary changes in translation into a highly civilized language, and of necessary amendments made in Congress. They have gone on holding ghost dances, complaining about the rations issued to them under treaties, objecting to the way their money was handled by the government, and it is charged on excellent civilized authority, actually stealing from civilized people who have settled on their lands.

Under such circumstances there could have been only one ending for Sitting Bull, and now that it has come he has no complaint to make. There is every reason to believe, therefore, that it was perfectly satisfactory to him. He himself had recognized it as inevitable and had fully made up his mind to it, preferring it to death in what in his barbaric way he called the "stone houses of the Great Father," meaning thereby the penitentiaries in which the Great Father, with the aid of Hon. Powell Clayton, Hon. Poker J. McClure and others of his Sanhedrin, attempts on occasion to incarcerate those who disagree with him in such a way as to inconvenience him.

So when Sitting Bull was surprised and overpowered by the agents of the Great Father, he set his greasy, stolid face into the expression it always took when he was most overcome by the delusion that he was born a native American from native American ancestry. Disarmed and defenceless he sat in the saddle in which he had been put as a preliminary to taking him to prison, and without a change of countenance urged his handful of greasy followers to die free. This idiotic proceeding he kept up until he was shot out of the saddle.

So died Sitting Bull. So was removed one of the last obstacles in the path of progress. He will now make excellent manure for the crops, which will grow over him when his reservation is civilized.

The work of redeeming these excellent lands from barbarism has now reached a point where it can be at once carried to completion. The filth and vermin-infested Sioux and other savages who have pretended a desire to live even under starvation rations and broken treaties will be persuaded by Sitting Bull's example, and a little skillful management of the same kind which converted him from a brutal savage into a good Indian, to stand up where they can be shot out of the way of advancing progress.

Mr. Harrison should continue to act with the same promptness and firmness he has shown in Sitting Bull's case. While one of these barbarians lives to claim an acre of unentered land in the United States he will remain as an obstacle to progress. A firm persistence by the President in the admirably progressive policy he has illustrated in Sitting Bulls case will make good Indians of all the rest of them, bucks, squaws and pappooses. And the future historian will say of them, no doubt, that they died justly, because they owned lands and would not use fine-toothed combs."

 

[Irvine511]

I don’t think this has been blown out of proportion because it has stirred more public discussion of racism, free speech, and where the lines are fuzzy. My hope would be that it shows that people should think before they mouth off some cheap mean-spirited comments for laughs and ratings. For me this is probably more of an issue of compassion than free speech. Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.

while i maintain that the response was out of proportion, i agree that much has been learned in the conversation that has followed. heck, i'm still posting about it, so it's obvious that this situation has hit on a lot of interesting issues.

I also think this is different than Emimen's record. That was art, characters in stories, and not necessarily how Eminem himself feels but which reflects attitudes and issues in our society. I don't know the record well enough to analyze it specifically but in general, that's how I feel about art. Imus was speaking as himself and despite his philanthropical work, revealed that he has racist issues but I'm more than satisfied with his response.

i take the point about art, but what about comedy? Imus has maintained that the comment was spoken as part of a comedic segment on his show -- does that make it closer to news or to art?

 

[BVS]

Imus has maintained that the comment was spoken as part of a comedic segment on his show -- does that make it closer to news or to art?

I think Imus rides a thin line. He's a comedian one second and a serious reporter the next second. And sometimes he plays the comedy card all too convieniently.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/

 

[joyfulgirl]

i take the point about art, but what about comedy? Imus has maintained that the comment was spoken as part of a comedic segment on his show -- does that make it closer to news or to art?

Context is everything and I haven't heard the segment, just read his comments. But based on what I've read, I guess I don't quite buy that it was just part of comedic segment. I think he's so used to being nasty that these kinds of things just fly out of his mouth. It didn't sound like he was using humor to make a comment about racism. It just sounded racist to me. When I have time I'll try to hunt down an audiophile and hear it myself (which perhaps I should have done before even engaging in this discussion )



* edited to say that okay maybe context isn't everything but it's an important factor.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Imus isn’t the real bad guy
Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist[/q]

^ speaking as someone who is intimately acquainted with self-hate and with communities that swim in self-hate, there is a lot of wisdom in that article. i don't agree with all points, but this seems to be the start of some genuinely productive dialogue.

 

[Irvine511]

Context is everything and I haven't heard the segment, just read his comments. But based on what I've read, I guess I don't quite buy that it was just part of comedic segment. I think he's so used to being nasty that these kinds of things just fly out of his mouth. It didn't sound like he was using humor to make a comment about racism. It just sounded racist to me. When I have time I'll try to hunt down an audiophile and hear it myself (which perhaps I should have done before even engaging in this discussion )

i think BVS said it well -- he does tread a fine line, and he does make snarly, mean comments all the time. i remember being offended by what he's said about Arabs, calling Ramadan "Rama-lama-ding-dong," which Tim Russert once called him to task for.

 

[joyfulgirl]

i think BVS said it well -- he does tread a fine line, and he does make snarly, mean comments all the time. i remember being offended by what he's said about Arabs, calling Ramadan "Rama-lama-ding-dong," which Tim Russert once called him to task for.

And unless that kind of humor is used in a context of commenting about racism, then I can only assume that it reflects how the person really feels, even if they think they're "just joking." Many a truth is spoken in jest. I've seen this in myself as well--I'll make a comment, say I'm just kidding, and then feel really embarrassed by the realization that my subconscious self just revealed itself. But when you make your living being that way with no self-analysis behind it, never questioning why you feel a need to always say mean things about others, you have some real problems.